ATF investigating after congressional candidate cut apart AR-15 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;53194991] [url=http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276693/]Here's[/url] one example. A law-abiding machine gun collector was arrested by the ATF for constructive possession. He had a pistol, a machine gun, and a stock for the machine gun- which could also theoretically be mounted on the pistol, which would be an illegal SBR, but the ATF had no evidence that it had ever been used this way. They also confiscated a completely legal semi-automatic M14, heavily modified its internal parts to turn it into a machine gun, and then claimed that he was in possession of an unregistered machine gun. ATF prosecuted on multiple charges, and an initial conviction was only overturned on appeal.[/QUOTE] How is illegally collecting a short barrel rifle the same magnitude as vandalizing a gun into a short barrel rifle (recorded, by the way, for protest) and then turning it into the authorities? One seems like the dude was in possession of an illegal item that he intended to keep (they only overturned, from my research, the fact that he had a machine gun, but kept the charge for an illegal short barrel rifle), whereas the case in question here is decidely not that.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53195073]How is illegally collecting a short barrel rifle the same magnitude as vandalizing a gun into a short barrel rifle (recorded, by the way, for protest) and then turning it into the authorities? One seems like the dude was in possession of an illegal item that he intended to keep (they only overturned, from my research, the fact that he had a machine gun, but kept the charge for an illegal short barrel rifle), whereas the case in question here is decidely not that.[/QUOTE] Because the law is about possession. Oh, and in legal terms, it's "manufacturing", which is a second charge on top of possession, not "vandalizing".

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195082]Because the law is about possession. Oh, and in legal terms, it's "manufacturing", which is a second charge on top of possession, not "vandalizing".[/QUOTE] Law isn't some program executed by lawyer-robots, its carried out by human beings where context matters. The context of this case clearly isn't possession. Do you actually believe what you are saying?

[QUOTE=Flameon;53195112]Law isn't some program executed by lawyer-robots, its carried out by human beings where context matters. The context of this case clearly isn't possession. Do you actually believe what you are saying?[/QUOTE] I mean, in the case of firearms, I sure as fuck do. Don't sit here and say that firearms are serious things that should not be taken lightly, and then say that someone shouldn't be prosecuted for textbook breaking of the very laws that regulate these serious things. For all of the times I've heard people on this forum talk about how we need more gun control laws, for those same people to sit here and say that a law shouldn't be enforced is just baffling. I might not like the law, but I want it changed, not selectively enforced. Until it is changed, it needs to be enforced.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195129]I mean, in the case of firearms, I sure as fuck do. Don't sit here and say that firearms are serious things that should not be taken lightly, and then say that someone shouldn't be prosecuted for textbook breaking of the very laws that regulate these serious things. For all of the times I've heard people on this forum talk about how we need more gun control laws, for those same people to sit here and say that a law shouldn't be enforced is just baffling. I might not like the law, but I want it changed, not selectively enforced. Until it is changed, it needs to be enforced.[/QUOTE] No wonder you are against gun control laws if you think this is an example of enforcing it. Laws aren't air-tight fabrics you can drape over reality and then know what to do. There is always an element of human invention and interpretation. Its also the same reason that if I found some weed in a bag on the ground, and went to the police and turned it in they wouldn't arrest me. The same reason that I wouldn't be charged with "possessing" a SBR if I found one outside and turned it into the police is the same reason this woman wouldn't be charged. And the same reason that the ATF isn't going to press charges on this woman because her protest [I]clearly[/I] is in line with the spirit of the law. It's because lawyers aren't robots, and because they know that the law is a set of general guidelines but context matters.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53195141]No wonder you are against gun control laws if you think this is an example of enforcing it. Laws aren't air-tight fabrics you can drape over reality and then know what to do. There is always an element of human invention and interpretation. Its also the same reason that if I found some weed in a bag on the ground, and went to the police and turned it in they wouldn't arrest me. The same reason that I wouldn't be charged with "possessing" a SBR if I found one outside and turned it into the police is the same reason this woman wouldn't be charged. And the same reason that the ATF isn't going to press charges on this woman because her protest [I]clearly[/I] is in line with the spirit of the law. It's because lawyers aren't robots, and because they know that the law is a set of general guidelines but context matters.[/QUOTE] This isn't like finding a bag of weed. This is like making a video of yourself making meth, then posting it on the internet and then turning in the meth to the police. They WILL arrest and charge you for manufacture and possession of a controlled substance. Calling something a protest does not absolve you of any crimes committed.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195155]This isn't like finding a bag of weed. This is like making a video of yourself making meth, then posting it on the internet and then turning in the meth to the police. They WILL arrest and charge you for manufacture and possession of a controlled substance. Calling something a protest does not absolve you of any crimes committed.[/QUOTE] Terrible analogy because her goal was not to make a short barrel rifle, so your hypothetical of making meth as protest is way out of line. A better parallel would be some type of protest involving prescription drugs, recording yourself burning them, and taking them to the police. Upon taking them to the police for them to dispose of the ashes, it turns out you unknowingly produced a schedule 1 substance. Is your contention the police are going to arrest you? [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] Judges and prosecutors dont blindly execute the law, which is something you continue to be assuming. Nor should they.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195155]This isn't like finding a bag of weed. This is like making a video of yourself making meth, then posting it on the internet and then turning in the meth to the police. They WILL arrest and charge you for manufacture and possession of a controlled substance. Calling something a protest does not absolve you of any crimes committed.[/QUOTE] Actually I'm pretty sure that if you did some sort of "science experiment" for a YouTube video and actually made meth and then called the authorities to pick it up after you realized it might be toxic you wouldn't get charged with anything because that would be completely fucking ridiculious.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53195170]If i'm cutting down a shotgun barrel, and accidentally cut it too short, the "but I didn't mean to cut it too short" defense isn't going to save my ass, now is it? And yes, if you unknowingly made some schedule 1 substance, you'd be guilty of possession and manufacture of a controlled substance.[/QUOTE] If you are cutting a shotgun barrel, accidentally cut it too short, realize your mistake, and turn it into the police, no you wont get arrested. Why do you think this is how the law works??

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195129]I mean, in the case of firearms, I sure as fuck do. Don't sit here and say that firearms are serious things that should not be taken lightly, and then say that someone shouldn't be prosecuted for textbook breaking of the very laws that regulate these serious things. For all of the times I've heard people on this forum talk about how we need more gun control laws, for those same people to sit here and say that a law shouldn't be enforced is just baffling. I might not like the law, but I want it changed, not selectively enforced. Until it is changed, it needs to be enforced.[/QUOTE] If this was a video of some ignorant but well-meaning gun owner who made a video of herself destroying her rifle, would you be such a strict hardline for the letter of the law? Or would you be decrying the overbearing ATF ruining another innocent life with the ruthless enforcement of poor gun legislation? Destroying a rifle on your own property and turning it into the police hurts fucking nobody and nobody should be subjected to the penal system over it. Again, it seems more likely to me you want this woman prosecuted out of petty spite because you disagree with her politics and not because you actually give a shit about whether the law is sensible.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53195273]If this was a video of some ignorant but well-meaning gun owner who made a video of herself destroying her rifle, would you be such a strict hardline for the letter of the law? Or would you be decrying the overbearing ATF ruining another innocent life with the ruthless enforcement of poor gun legislation? Destroying a rifle on your own property and turning it into the police hurts fucking nobody and nobody should be subjected to the penal system over it. Again, it seems more likely to me you want this woman prosecuted out of petty spite because you disagree with her politics and not because you actually give a shit about whether the law is sensible.[/QUOTE] There is a normal well-meaning gentlemen who did the same thing, and we asked for the same thing. [url]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18569641/well-meaning-gun-owner-accidentally-creates-illegal-firearm-in-viral-video/[/url]

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53195307]There is a normal well-meaning gentlemen who did the same thing, and we asked for the same thing. [url]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18569641/well-meaning-gun-owner-accidentally-creates-illegal-firearm-in-viral-video/[/url][/QUOTE] What a shock, they didn't charge this man with a felony. Its almost like context matters

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53195321]I mean, we should change the laws, I totally agree, and I'd rather not see this woman in prison. BUT at the same time she did break the law, and i'm not going to shed any tears if the ATF decides to prosecute her.[/QUOTE] Prosecutes and imprisons a woman who is zero threat to anyone. Are you shitting me. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;53194991]Randy Weaver is a complicated subject (GunFox, you left out that he didn't show up for court because he was given a summons [i]with the wrong date[/i]), but there are much less ambiguous examples of the ATF being zealously overbearing. [url=http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/276693/]Here's[/url] one example. A law-abiding machine gun collector was arrested by the ATF for constructive possession. He had a pistol, a machine gun, and a stock for the machine gun- which could also theoretically be mounted on the pistol, which would be an illegal SBR, but the ATF had no evidence that it had ever been used this way. They also confiscated a completely legal semi-automatic M14, heavily modified its internal parts to turn it into a machine gun, and then claimed that he was in possession of an unregistered machine gun. ATF prosecuted on multiple charges, and an initial conviction was only overturned on appeal.[/QUOTE] He missed it and then started a standoff with the Marshal's who were there to serve a bench warrant. It wasn't even the ATF running the show. It obviously has absolutely zero to do with this.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53195313]What a shock, they didn't charge this man with a felony. Its almost like context matters[/QUOTE] Or that he's still under investigation, because it literally happened a week or two before the thread topic

not sure if it was said in thread already, but if a rifle is cut apart in half is it still considered a rifle? since its rendered inoperable as such from its previous state

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53195170] Considering our enforcement of drug laws, you probably would be charged, and your life ruined over a science experiment. Or if you're talking about just a toxic substance in general, you'd better believe the EPA would come down on you.[/QUOTE] Honestly? Probably not. Judges have the ability to throw out cases for a reason. You may get a fine but you aren't going to become a felon over accidentally producing a toxic substance and then reporting it to the authorities unless there is no doubt that it was a result of willing negligence instead of an accident.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53195161]Terrible analogy because her goal was not to make a short barrel rifle, so your hypothetical of making meth as protest is way out of line. A better parallel would be some type of protest involving prescription drugs, recording yourself burning them, and taking them to the police. Upon taking them to the police for them to dispose of the ashes, it turns out you unknowingly produced a schedule 1 substance. Is your contention the police are going to arrest you? [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] Judges and prosecutors dont blindly execute the law, which is something you continue to be assuming. Nor should they.[/QUOTE] You use the word "unknowingly" when, by her own statements, she claims she knew what she was doing, and that she was "following regulation". This wasn't unknowingly. And judges and prosecutors SHOULD be executing the law. It's supposed to be fair and even. If you think this kind of discretion is how the law should work, then you don't ever get to complain that one person gets off with a slap on the wrist while another person gets jailed for the same crime. [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53195273]If this was a video of some ignorant but well-meaning gun owner who made a video of herself destroying her rifle, would you be such a strict hardline for the letter of the law? Or would you be decrying the overbearing ATF ruining another innocent life with the ruthless enforcement of poor gun legislation? Destroying a rifle on your own property and turning it into the police hurts fucking nobody and nobody should be subjected to the penal system over it.[/quote] What you speak of did happen, and I also think they should feel the consequences of their actions, just like everyone else should. I'm not being inconsistent here. [quote]Again, it seems more likely to me you want this woman prosecuted out of petty spite because you disagree with her politics and not because you actually give a shit about whether the law is sensible.[/QUOTE] It seems to me like you just want her to escape prosecution of a firearm law which you would otherwise want people prosecuted for just because you agree with her politics and not because you actually give a shit about it being a bad law with horrible enforcement. See that? I can make baseless outrageous accusations about your motives as well. But please, keep attacking your strawman version of my argument like some crazy conspiracy theorist. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=lNloruzenchi;53195578]not sure if it was said in thread already, but if a rifle is cut apart in half is it still considered a rifle? since its rendered inoperable as such from its previous state[/QUOTE] Yes, especially what she did. In her case, the firearm can still fire, and is still operable. It just isn't semi-auto anymore. As for actually destroying it to the point of it not being considered a rifle, there is a specific way you have to do this.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53195170]If i'm cutting down a shotgun barrel, and accidentally cut it too short, the "but I didn't mean to cut it too short" defense isn't going to save my ass, now is it? And yes, if you unknowingly made some schedule 1 substance, you'd be guilty of possession and manufacture of a controlled substance. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] Considering our enforcement of drug laws, you probably would be charged, and your life ruined over a science experiment. Or if you're talking about just a toxic substance in general, you'd better believe the EPA would come down on you.[/QUOTE] If you accidentally cut your barrel too short and immediately handed it in, explaining the situation one would hope they'd be understanding and wouldn't charge you for felony. The law is to stop criminals using easy to conceal rifles and shotguns, going after hobbyists for a mistake would be a problem with the law imo. Luckily people enforcing the laws are human with the power of judgement so scenarios like this will probably not result in you getting prison time. Hopefully we can both agree the actual law is dumb and the disagreement lies in how that law is interpreted and acted upon? How I see it is if someone is gonna rob a bank with a sawed off then possession of an illegal firearm isn't gonna stop them, maybe the intention of this law is to "upgrade" charges brought against suspected crminals and gang members who were caught but are slippery enough to not qualify for other charges -these guys are probably going to rob a bank but we got no proof, luckily they got sawed off weapons so we can charge em for that. Does that sound feasible for the intention behind this law? The toxic substance scenario is also different since, unlike an unloaded firearm, you can't hand it over to the police safely and the cleanup afterward (properly disabling firearm vs decontamination) is significantly different, even then you've seen that 4chan crystal prank thing, theres a situation where someone is accidentally making mustard gas(?), I hardly think those peeps would be charged for a felony for accidentally gassing themselves.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53195073]How is illegally collecting a short barrel rifle[/QUOTE] Did you read the article? The man had a stock for his legally owned, legally registered machine gun that would be perfectly legal for it. ATF decided, because it could hypothetically be attached to another firearm he owned (even though it wasn't) that he was committing constructive intent. You're telling me that an agency that says 'you theoretically had the capability to build an illegal SBR, therefore we're going to charge you as if you had done it' would be consistent in letting someone go who actually did build an illegal SBR? Clearly intentions don't matter to ATF.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53195755]The law is to stop criminals using easy to conceal rifles and shotguns[/quote] I'm going to need a source for this cliam. [quote]Luckily people enforcing the laws are human with the power of judgement[/quote] Also going to need a source on this claim. [quote]Hopefully we can both agree the actual law is dumb and the disagreement lies in how that law is interpreted and acted upon?[/quote] Agreed. This is pretty much the entire issue here. [quote]How I see it is if someone is gonna rob a bank with a sawed off then possession of an illegal firearm isn't gonna stop them, maybe the intention of this law is to "upgrade" charges brought against suspected crminals and gang members who were caught but are slippery enough to not qualify for other charges -these guys are probably going to rob a bank but we got no proof, luckily they got sawed off weapons so we can charge em for that. Does that sound feasible for the intention behind this law?[/quote] I see an issue with "upgrade" charges as well. We have conspiracy laws to charge people who are proven to be conspiring to commit a crime. On top of that, I would have a HUGE ethical concern about laws who's only purpose is to pad cases for larger sentences.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;53193896]Again, how and why should we take people like you seriously? Explain this to me.[/QUOTE] Considering you and many others like to put words in my mouth (remember, I didn't say anything about rifles in that post, YOU did) I guess you're just as free to ignore me now as you were before?

Silence, you are the one that needs to be providing sources. The purpose of the law is to prevent people from owning, using, and transferring sbrs. Both the cases of the person slicing their weapon in protest to destroy it, and then taking it to the cops, are not going to be arrested because their activity is clearly not within the spirit of the law. You keep asserting this lady is gonna be arrested but you have no example which proves this thats even close to comparable. You are playing legal "GOTCHA!" which I don't know why. Whats your point, you want us to think the law is overly strict? It depends on if you think people should be allowed to possess SBR's or not. If the answer is "no," then no, then the law isn't overly strict. You are never going to find a law that encompasses all boundary cases because human beings and their affairs are more complex than a legal document.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53196081]Silence, you are the one that needs to be providing sources. The purpose of the law is to prevent people from owning, using, and transferring sbrs. Both the cases of the person slicing their weapon in protest to destroy it, and then taking it to the cops, are not going to be arrested because their activity is clearly not within the spirit of the law. You keep asserting this lady is gonna be arrested but you have no example which proves this thats even close to comparable. You are playing legal "GOTCHA!" which I don't know why. Whats your point, you want us to think the law is overly strict? It depends on if you think people should be allowed to possess SBR's or not. If the answer is "no," then no, then the law isn't overly strict. You are never going to find a law that encompasses all boundary cases because human beings and their affairs are more complex than a legal document.[/QUOTE] You forgot "manufacturing" and "possessing". In both cases, they manufactured and possessed SBRs, regardless of taking it to the cops. Oh, and in her own words, she "knew what she was doing" enough to look up regulations. When told about the regulation she broke, she didn't say that it was an accident, she doubled down, tried to justify it, and insulted people. She has no "unintentionally" excuse. And yes, the SBR law IS overly strict. It always has been. We've been saying this for years.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53195976][B]Considering you and many others like to put words in my mouth (remember, I didn't say anything about rifles in that post, YOU did)[/B] I guess you're just as free to ignore me now as you were before?[/QUOTE] Ok, so you brought up an M249 as a reference gun, which unless you have the most money and friends at the ATFE, you'll never get your hands on outright, and as for semi-auto versions that are sold on the civilian market, their internal mechanisms are reworked so they function like a normal semi-auto rifle. [url]https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-m249s/[/url] Now, they CAN be converted back to a full auto configuration, but then they're known as a "Post Sample" machine gun, which means that it can only be used by law enforcement, military members, or Class 3 weapons manufacturers(usually for demonstration/evaluation purposes), sale to civilians is still outright banned, and use of parts to make a Class 3 weapon without a license to do so is a crime punishable by 10 years. [url]https://hi-desertdog.com/belt-fed-rifles-machine-guns/belt-fed-spare-parts/auto-conversion-kit-for-the-m249s.html[/url] But like I was saying, it is in theory easy, it's literally the trigger assembly and bolt, but no one is going to buy an $8,500 gun to then buy a $2,300 set of parts to make it a true full auto weapon unless they were the people I described. So, using that gun as a "haha you can do this to this, SEE" is a terrible gotcha because converting ANYTHING to full auto that was a semi-automatic gun is a 10 year felony charge, and it would make more sense to try and make a $500-$800 AR-15 full auto because of price alone, but even then the 10 year charge is enough of a deterrent to stop most people from doing it. Also "I wasn't talking about rifles" when you bring up a gun, that in it's legal configuration IS considered a rifle because 1) It has rifling and 2) Requires two hands to fire, is just fucking confusing when I point out the majority of gun deaths are committed by pistols. And you just espouse this attitude of "haha fuck you assholes and your hobby", with shit like this [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53191635]I'd be all for it if all semi-automatics (after having been told by numerous gun fans and hobbyists here and elsewhere just how [I]easy[/I] it is to modify/use them in some way to "get around" certain regulations regarding fully-automatics) were regulated just as heavily as fully automatics are. [B]At least until we get this damn "violent crime" issue under control, then you and your buddies can go on complaining about how expensive it is to reload your M249 after an afternoon at the range. Whaddya say?[/B][/QUOTE] Straight out condescending. Then you're not even grounded in illogical logic, you're just being daft man. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415][B]First, I didn't say rifles, I said semi-autos. As in ANY semi-auto, whether that's a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun or a rubber-band gun[/B] (props if you can drop an active shooter with a rubber-band gun, that's Home Alone as fuck)[/QUOTE] And I'm supposed to take you serious? [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415]Unless I specifically mentioned the word "rifle" anywhere in that post, which from my quick re-reading of it I did not... OH you might be talking about the M249 mention?! [B]Yeah I wouldn't call that "a rifle" in the context of full-auto vs. semi-auto[/B] [/QUOTE] But it is. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415][B]even if you wanted to argue semantics it's irrelevant to the comparison[/B], if you can buy a semi-auto M249 then I say "neat?" but you can understand my concern if it were super-easy for anyone ([B]as in "ANYONE" and that includes the sort you WOULDN'T want to do this[/B]) to make it into full-auto, or at least close enough to it, right?[/QUOTE] Oh wait a cursory google search shows not only is this terribly unfounded in reality, lets say sure, someones willing to spend $11,000 to convert a $8,500 semi auto belt fed rifle into a full auto machine gun with $2,300 worth of parts for nefarious purposes, they aren't doing it enough to warrant your fear of the things. I'd be more afraid of a local street gang stealing glocks from stores than some twat spending ludicrous amounts of money to convert something to full auto, because the chance of those pistols going into black market circulation, killing people, being traded off again and repeating the cycle is much more likely because of the simple fact you can put the damned thing in your pocket. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415] Second, I was kidding (hence the "whaddya say", sorry for not making it more clear, seriously who says that?). I know damn well nobody would go for that, unless you seriously believe that I've learned absolutely nothing from having discussed this matter with others here and abroad, in which case you do you? I have had a decent amount of people try to put words in my mouth in those discussions though, so I understand the confusion if the way I word things is hindering this discussion in some way.[/QUOTE] No one is putting words in your mouth when you're saying something and being called out for it, then back track with "oh I mean EVERYTHING even though my example was one specific type of gun that I don't know anything about and because it's a military gun I gotta say it as an example". Then you were "kidding", but say this. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415]But as a fun aside, I am personally friends with enough responsible gun owners that I would fear getting my ass pistol-whipped to death if I had the power to pass anything like that, so yeaaaah no. I gotcha. [/QUOTE] Assert that the people you're debating against will attack you physically for your opinion, while not listening to any logical stance on the issue at hand. Honestly, I can see why people could get mad at you, but if they did this they're pieces of shit regardless. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193415]Third, I think certain people here are also being purposefully antagonistic if they're seriously calling for her to face the fullest extent of the law just because she turned in a rifle that she oopsie-daisie'd into contraband, purely on her own volition? [/QUOTE] This is how you interpret it, but it's flat out wrong because it doesn't even take into account how the gun functions. To destroy a gun legally, as has been stated many times in this thread, is you take it to a FFL or the ATFE and have them destroy it proper, because they understand the process to properly torch cut and destroy the lower receiver of the rifle and have the legal authority to do so. Even though the upper receiver contains the gas system, barrel, and bolt assembly that you would "think" are the gun, the lower receiver, which houses the hammer and trigger, the parts that are considered "the gun", is the part that is serialized and required destruction, so her taking a grinder to the barrel is laughably wrong, inadvertently a crime, and because it was her husbands gun, unlawful destruction of a firearm charges should be placed on both of them because the husband allowed her to do it. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse out of punishment for committing a crime, though it can excuse some criminal intent, like for example her motivations were purely political, and if it weren't for that alone, she and her husband would be getting fucked hard by the ATFE like any regular person would be if they were in the same position. Your politics shouldn't let you get out of punishment from a crime if you obviously committed a crime.

[QUOTE=Flameon;53196081]You are playing legal "GOTCHA!" which I don't know why. Whats your point, you want us to think the law is overly strict? It depends on if you think people should be allowed to possess SBR's or not. If the answer is "no," then no, then the law isn't overly strict. You are never going to find a law that encompasses all boundary cases because human beings and their affairs are more complex than a legal document.[/QUOTE] Tell that to the ATF. The reason why our arguments are basically a legal GOTCHA is because that is what the ATF is infamous for doing in how they enforce laws. They don’t care about context or discretion, much like ICE agents who just sit outside of courthouses to arrest legal immigrants before they can renew their paperwork to stay in the country. They have an agenda.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;53196271]So, using that gun as a "haha you can do this to this, SEE" is a terrible gotcha because converting ANYTHING to full auto that was a semi-automatic gun is a 10 year felony charge, and it would make more sense to try and make a $500-$800 AR-15 full auto because of price alone, but even then the 10 year charge is enough of a deterrent to stop most people from doing it.[/quote] That's a bunch of really cool information and all, but I believe I said [I]any[/I] modification that brings it to full-auto [I]or similar[/I], which as I recall having seen this discussion far, far too many times, is [I]stupidly[/I] easy, if not by "filing off a bit" (cannot confirm, not my hobby, this is as explained to me by "gun-nuts") then by the various trigger methods/enhancements you've brought up time and again, including, but not limited to, bump-stocks, even if it effectively does the same thing as holding your finger (and maybe tongue?) at the right angle. "But bumping the trigger isn't full auto" (seen this a lot) Yeah, cool, technically correct, whatever, but 600 rounds-per-minute is still 600 rounds-per-minute, no matter how "easily" or "conveniently" it's done. [quote]Also "I wasn't talking about rifles" when you bring up a gun, that in it's legal configuration IS considered a rifle because 1) It has rifling and 2) Requires two hands to fire, is just fucking confusing when I point out the majority of gun deaths are committed by pistols.[/quote] Because here is what I actually said: [quote]I'd be all for it if all semi-automatics (after having been told by numerous gun fans and hobbyists here and elsewhere just how easy it is to modify/use them in some way to "get around" certain regulations regarding fully-automatics) were regulated just as heavily as fully automatics are. At least until we get this damn "violent crime" issue under control, then you and your buddies can go on complaining about how expensive it is to reload your M249 after an afternoon at the range. Whaddya say?[/quote] And here's a break-down: [quote]I'd be all for it if all semi-automatics (after having been told by numerous gun fans and hobbyists here and elsewhere just how easy it is to modify/use them in some way to "get around" certain regulations regarding fully-automatics)[/quote] No specific mention of any weapon to be discussed within the particular context of this quote. I didn't use the M249 as an example with this particular statement, as this statement is separate from the M249 statement (as explained later). [quote]were regulated just as heavily as fully automatics are.[/quote] No talk of bans, no talk of confiscation. Regulated just as heavily, as in treated as effectively the same. Given their ease to fire at near-full auto speeds (either with simple modifications/techniques or expensive modifications as you detailed), availability compared to full-auto, etc. As I recall, this particular post was also in response to : [QUOTE=SKEEA;53189306]Cool. So does this mean that you would support repealing of the 1934 National Firearms Act?[/QUOTE] Which to me personally says "Boy I really want fully automatics!" to which I say "fine, but a concession should be made", and given the evidence we've seen and shared here regarding the ease of converting or even using a semi-auto in some way to get somewhere even remotely close to full-auto speeds, but cheaper, and more abundant, then you might as well effectively treat them the same, especially since now you've closed that particular barrier and surely certain parts will be more wide-spread. Who's going to think twice about anyone buying that stuff if "[I]everyone[/I]" can/is buying it? But given the direction this discussion is headed (as have all that have come prior), it's obvious the answer would be "fuck that". I never intended for that suggestion to be taken seriously, because if you ask me, why the hell are we talking about making [I]more[/I] guns [I]more[/I] accessible in a time where that just doesn't make any sense to do so? Sure you might argue the law was heavy-handed when it was passed in 1934, but considering the differences between that era and today, maybe it wasn't the worst decision? I mean, after the North Hollywood shootout (which granted used illegally modified arms, but I also can't find any confirmation as to whether their guns were also illegally purchased) that opening the registry so that more people, as in more [I]average, every day people[/I], could have access to fully-automatic weapons when you see the damage we're doing to ourselves with what we [I]aren't[/I] regulating that strictly? [quote]And you just espouse this attitude of "haha fuck you assholes and your hobby", with shit like this[/quote] That brings us to the end of my post in question: [quote]At least until we get this damn "violent crime" issue under control, then you and your buddies can go on complaining about how expensive it is to reload your M249 after an afternoon at the range. Whaddya say?[/quote] Remember where I said the two statements were separate? That's what periods are for. [quote]Straight out condescending.[/quote] Granted, but it still had nothing to do with my comment about semi-autos (a completely separate sentence) but you decided to include it anyway to assume I want to regulate [I]only[/I] rifles? I didn't intend to sound condescending but when you keep putting words in my mouth (not even you, but so many others) that I can see how I might come off that way. [quote]And I'm supposed to take you serious?[/quote] Depends on if you prefer to take satire seriously or not, I guess? I mean "rubber-band gun" should have made it obvious. [quote]But it is.[/quote] But it's not, as I have explained earlier. [quote]Oh wait a cursory google search shows not only is this terribly unfounded in reality, lets say sure, someones willing to spend $11,000 to convert a $8,500 semi auto belt fed rifle into a full auto machine gun with $2,300 worth of parts for nefarious purposes, they aren't doing it enough to warrant your fear of the things. I'd be more afraid of a local street gang stealing glocks from stores than some twat spending ludicrous amounts of money to convert something to full auto, because the chance of those pistols going into black market circulation, killing people, being traded off again and repeating the cycle is much more likely because of the simple fact you can put the damned thing in your pocket.[/quote] Here you seem to think I imply that all criminals would just [I]buy[/I] their legal parts. I did not. But since you brought it up, it's not unreasonable to think that nobody would bat an eye at somebody doing this right after a massacre if it was something just [I]anyone[/I] was able to do. Part of the control debate is the availability, not necessarily even the fire-arms themselves. Once parts to convert are legal, there'll be incentive to make them cheaper, and once that happens, you have tons of them floating around in one form or another, and suddenly you can't possibly hope to account for them all. [I]That's[/I] the concern I have, anyway: not necessarily how hard they are to [I]buy[/I], but how hard they are to [I]find[/I] should you find yourself "needing" one. As a side-note, if you believe that there wouldn't be some massive influx of the things due to popular demand for any reason, remember, this is the same country that brought you Pogz, Fidget Spinners, and Vaping. If there's anything this country does right, it's grabbing onto the latest trend and running it into the ground. :v: [quote]Then you were "kidding", but say this.[/quote] No dude, I mean they would [I]literally[/I] hunt me down and beat my ass. You don't know my friends, dude. I'm not some liberal stereotype who surrounds himself with an echo-chamber of friends. (and at least two of them just really, really love their deer meat/jerky, and I can't blame them, shit's awesome) [quote]Assert that the people you're debating against will attack you physically for your opinion, while not listening to any logical stance on the issue at hand. Honestly, I can see why people could get mad at you, but if they did this they're pieces of shit regardless.[/quote] It wouldn't be the first time it happened. And again, you don't know my friends. They have their faults but so does anyone else. [quote]This is how you interpret it, but it's flat out wrong because it doesn't even take into account how the gun functions. To destroy a gun legally, as has been stated many times in this thread, is you take it to a FFL or the ATFE and have them destroy it proper, because they understand the process to properly torch cut and destroy the lower receiver of the rifle and have the legal authority to do so. Even though the upper receiver contains the gas system, barrel, and bolt assembly that you would "think" are the gun, the lower receiver, which houses the hammer and trigger, the parts that are considered "the gun", is the part that is serialized and required destruction, so her taking a grinder to the barrel is laughably wrong, inadvertently a crime, and because it was her husbands gun, unlawful destruction of a firearm charges should be placed on both of them because the husband allowed her to do it. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse out of punishment for committing a crime, though it can excuse some criminal intent, like for example her motivations were purely political, and if it weren't for that alone, she and her husband would be getting fucked hard by the ATFE like any regular person would be if they were in the same position. Your politics shouldn't let you get out of punishment from a crime if you obviously committed a crime.[/QUOTE] Are you required in any way to know any of this stuff before you purchase a fire-arm for any reason?