PSG-1 Banned?


PDA






The Grand Inquisitor
September 21, 2004, 08:42 PM
I just read on another website that the HK PSG-1 was banned via executive order in 1999. I am new to the rifle world (been around for about a year or two) and I had no idea the gun was absolutelly banned, much less a gun the was semi-auto.

If the thing is really banned, is there a good reason why it is?

If you enjoyed reading about "PSG-1 Banned?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
September 21, 2004, 08:43 PM
Look up the 1989 Import ban.

You just can't import them anymore. The way around the 89 Import ban is to replace a certain number of parts with US-made parts.

-z

PMDW
September 21, 2004, 09:53 PM
If the thing is really banned, is there a good reason why it is?

Can anyone provide a good reason as to why any gun is banned?

Mumbles_45
September 21, 2004, 10:03 PM
well, I can answer one of your questions with 100% certainty, if it was in fact banned specifically in 1999(which I havent heard anything about) there was definately no good reason

The Grand Inquisitor
September 21, 2004, 10:59 PM
I think the case can be made for moderate gun control; I think the current tax stamp control on fully automatic weapons is rational (though not the ban on importation and introduction into the country), and I think the ban on so called "destructive devices" is also fine and within the fences of the 2nd Amendment.

I do think that the logic of banning "sniper rifles" is based on a totally clueless axiom though - picking and choosing what a "sniper" rifle is demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on exactly what semi-automatic firearms are.

swingset
September 22, 2004, 03:15 AM
I think the case can be made for moderate gun control;

I don't. Moderate speech control doesn't work. Moderate drug control doesn't work. Moderate pornography control doesn't work. Why would guns be one bit different? Ah....they're (dum dum dum) designed to KILL!

I think the current tax stamp control on fully automatic weapons is rational

Why? What does tax have to do with a constitutionally protected right? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that "arms=semi auto or less". It meant MILITARY ARMS, equal to or equivolent of what a standing army might carry. That's F/A, partner.

Regulating them only provides revenue for the gubment, nothing more. It hasn't kept people from getting or using fully auto guns. (see Hollywood '97 shootout), nor has it made us safer. The NFA was bullcrap, and has proved to be worthless legislation.

Daemon688
September 22, 2004, 06:13 AM
Because the power to tax comes from within the constitution. Moderate gun control does work to an extent. It prevents criminals from legally obtaining firearms. Regulation of pornography works too, if there weren't any controls you could buy kiddie porn at any video store.

All those regulations work, but always to a certain extent.

Mulliga
September 22, 2004, 07:02 AM
I think the current tax stamp control on fully automatic weapons is rational

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Note that even when all the FAs were registered, even when the crime rate with registered FAs was practically ZERO, even when machine gun owners behaved well for 50 years...

Eventually they still banned 'em.

Down with the NFA! Down with gun control! :cool:

Steve Smith
September 22, 2004, 08:32 AM
I think the case can be made for moderate gun control;


I've been watching this thread for a few hours...I still have steam rolling from my ears over this. If I said what I want to say, I'd have to ban myself.

Trigger
September 22, 2004, 09:41 AM
I think the case can be made for moderate gun control

:rolleyes: :banghead: :fire: :cuss: Uh....yea......moderate gun control works real well........ :barf:

Byron Quick
September 22, 2004, 09:47 AM
Not only do I not think that a case can be made for moderate gun control but I am not aware of any instances of so-called moderate gun control .

Take as an example, the $200 tax stamp on fully automatic weapons. This was enacted in 1934 when you could buy a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine through the mail from the Sears & Roebuck catalog. The retail price of the weapon from Sears was $129.95. Do you really contend that a tax that is 35% over the price of an item is moderate? Also consider the year. 1934, the height of the Great Depression...many folks were working for a dollar a day and glad to get it. Do you think they thought the $200 tax was moderate?

Several years ago, I saw a water cooled Mauser beltfed machine gun that had been plowed out of a field here in Burke County. Mechanism was a solid mass of rust. Know why it was buried in that field? Because some doughboy had brought it back as a totally legal war trophy in 1919. And then was told he had to pay $200 to keep it 15 years later or go to prison for ten years and pay a $250,000 fine. To retain possession of his legal property that he had fought and risked life and limb for in the service of this nation. Think that was moderate? Oh, just in case you don't know: the Constitution forbids the government to seize property without paying for it...but what the hell...anything's ok as long as it's moderate...right?

Ian
September 22, 2004, 09:53 AM
Because the power to tax comes from within the constitution.

I see. So you think it would be ok to require a $200 fee and months-long Federal background check before giving a person permission to speak? Or to pray? Can they charge you for a jury trial? Can they restrict jury trials to those who don't have criminal records? Hey, I know! How about the Feds raise money by charging a tax on all publicly printed material? You would have to buy a stamp for each document, and affix it clearly to the top page. We could call it a "Stamp Tax."

You do realize that the machine gun ban hasn't been a tax since 1986, when they prohibited the registering of new machine guns, right? And that in 1934, it was blatantly designed to prohibit such guns rather than make tax money off of them, right? Look at the short-barreled shotgun section oft hat law - a $200 tax on what was then a $10 shotgun? If they enacted a $4,000 tax on Remington 870s tomorrow, would you consider that a tax or an attempt at prohibition?

Even if you believe that taxation is morally acceptable, it is well-known that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When the Feddies start using it to destroy rights, they have overstepped a line that should be obvious to every citizen who understands liberty.

It prevents criminals from legally obtaining firearms.

So flippin' what? The Constitution does not exist to prevent or reduce crime. It exists to protect our individual rights, even if that means having more crime (individual-on-individual crime, that is; not crimes committed by government) than a dictatorship would have.

Black Snowman
September 22, 2004, 10:50 AM
Once it's known that the purchaser is not a criminal or mentally unstable there is no justification for denying them the ability to posses any weapon if they have the means. If a person does indeed have any rights at all, they have the right to defend themselves as they see fit.

Every member of the government is bound by the Constitution to uphold it and it's principles. Knowing that they actively pursue the erosion of individual rights and defy the Constitution daily, they fear an armed populace.

If the government fears and attempts to restrict arms in the hands of the individual it's simply an admission that people are justified in wanting to be on equal footing as the government is no longer there to serve the people, but to turn them into subjects.

I wonder if this will get bumped to L&P ;)

another48hrs
September 22, 2004, 02:42 PM
Yes, the PSG1 is banned by name by Bill Clinton.

Also, I believe that the NFA is just like how the south had an intelligence test for voting. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, I wonder when they are going to get on the NFA.

Average Guy
September 22, 2004, 02:52 PM
It prevents criminals from legally obtaining firearms.

Oh? So what prevents criminals from ILLEGALY obtaining firearms?

Just wondering.

TODD3465
September 22, 2004, 02:58 PM
What part part of ".......shall not be infringed." Don't you understand???

It was written in English and I do not need a *$((^#@#^&^**%@@, lawyer or judge or some bureaucrate to "interpert" it for me, thank you very much.:fire:

Daemon688
September 22, 2004, 05:59 PM
[rant on]
You guys can get all uppity if you would like, but those are the facts. Maybe if our side would get off their ass and actually start a decent campaign, things would be different. The law is the law. If you have a problem with the law, maybe you and most of America should get off our asses and vote for people who support your views.

If you want full auto weapons and don't want to pay the tax stamp on it, then by all means get a CNC machine and start making parts. If you want a full auto and are willing to pay the current price tag of easily $2000+ dollars what's another $200 dollars and a waiting period? If you want the laws repealed then ORGANIZE, VOTE, and DEMONSTRATE. The problem with the pro-gun side is we're all too lazy to stand up and fight for our rights.

All laws don't prevent everyone from doing "insert bad thing here". But we still have them. Do you honestly think having now laws would make our country function? We have laws preventing anyone under 21 to buy alcohol. We have laws preventing people from buying weed, cocaine, meth, etc. Why aren't you trying to fight for their complete legalization? Felons can't vote unless they appear to a panel for review. Is that right? Why is kiddie porn illegal? What about beastiality? This list can go on and on. I would love to see you stand up for your right to own/create child pornography on the streets.

Laws are merely suggestions and it is up to you to follow them. If we live in a country without laws, then you live in anarchy.

Don't get me wrong here, I wish I could purchase a full auto AK for 400 bucks. I wish our government taxed less. I wish social welfare programs would be completly cut. The idea we are teaching kids in spanish because they don't understand english is BS.

Don't forget that those fat cats in washington got there from our votes. They will support the views of those who helped win the election. We have all these gun owners in America and yet we allow our the liberals and including the republicans erode away our freedoms.

Thus is life [/rant off]

Ian
September 22, 2004, 06:17 PM
I wish I could purchase a full auto AK for 400 bucks.

Maybe if our side would get off their ass and actually start a decent campaign, things would be different.

So...why haven't YOU started a campaign to legalize full autos? Or legalize illegal drugs? Or reduce taxes? Or cut Welfare? Or repeal the drinking age?

Daemon688
September 22, 2004, 08:15 PM
I'm not old enough to hold office :D

Ian
September 22, 2004, 11:35 PM
So? Neither am I, and that hasn't stopped me from partaking in political activism.

Tamara
September 23, 2004, 12:55 AM
We have laws preventing anyone under 21 to buy alcohol. We have laws preventing people from buying weed, cocaine, meth, etc.

Really? I haven't seen those laws prevent much of anybody from doing anything of the sort.

artherd
September 23, 2004, 05:33 AM
All laws don't prevent everyone from doing "insert bad thing here". But we still have them. Do you honestly think having now laws would make our country function? We have laws preventing anyone under 21 to buy alcohol. We have laws preventing people from buying weed, cocaine, meth, etc. Why aren't you trying to fight for their complete legalization? Felons can't vote unless they appear to a panel for review. Is that right? Why is kiddie porn illegal? What about beastiality? This list can go on and on. I would love to see you stand up for your right to own/create child pornography on the streets.


Right, but none of the above objects/passtimes are ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY NESSICARY TO SECUREING LIFE AND LIBERTY AND TO INSURE THAT GENOCIDE ANT TYRANY CAN NOT HAPPEN ON THESE SHORES!

We don't have guns just for the sake of having them, or to drive around in them, or to smoke them. We have them to insure that our government does not start rounding up jews and executing them.

feedthehogs
September 23, 2004, 11:07 AM
Fellas,
You got to remember that some of these comments are comming from kids still wet behind the ear in high school or college.
They haven't been out from under mom and dads coat to realize what the whole world is really about.
As any parent knows, they have all the answers and the older people are full of it.
Their youngs minds are full of ideals that the liberal teachers have taught them.
They will crash and burn and wake up to reality soon enough.

In the mean time "Don't tread on me".

Ian
September 23, 2004, 01:45 PM
Yep, my mind is sure full of ideas planted by liberal teachers.:rolleyes:

:p

GhostRider-Nine
September 23, 2004, 01:48 PM
You guys are missing the point. Back in 1934 when the NFA came into exsistance, there was a LOT of federal agents sitting around with nothing to do. They used to keep busy by going out and busting people for drinking or making alcohol, but now they just had nothing to do. So they made up a whole new bunch of thoughtless and stupid laws to keep them busy. Such as registering full autos, and suppressors. These were really useless laws, but hyped up because of all the gangland shoot ups....which for the most part went away when booze was legalized again. These laws were not about a 200 dollar tax, but were about CONTROL and keeping a lot of feds busy. I also love how corporations got themselves exempted from these laws....even today many class 3's are owned by "corporations" as hard assets. This is done when the local CLEO will not sign off on a private form 4....but he has NOTHING to say when it is done by a corporation, as it is all federal.

BTW, one of the funniest T-Shirts I ever saw was the one that said on the front...."Don't tell my mother I'm an NFA dealer." ... and on the back "She still thinks I own a chain of whore houses." :D

GhostRider-Nine
September 23, 2004, 01:49 PM
You guys are missing the point. Back in 1934 when the NFA came into exsistance, there was a LOT of federal agents sitting around with nothing to do. They used to keep busy by going out and busting people for drinking or making alcohol, but now they just had nothing to do. So they made up a whole new bunch of thoughtless and stupid laws to keep them busy. Such as registering full autos, and suppressors. These were really useless laws, but hyped up because of all the gangland shoot ups....which for the most part went away when booze was legalized again. These laws were not about a 200 dollar tax, but were about CONTROL and keeping a lot of feds busy. I also love how corporations got themselves exempted from these laws....even today many class 3's are owned by "corporations" as hard assets. This is done when the local CLEO will not sign off on a private form 4....but he has NOTHING to say when it is done by a corporation, as it is all federal.

BTW, one of the funniest T-Shirts I ever saw was the one that said on the front...."Don't tell my mother I'm an NFA dealer." ... and on the back "She still thinks I own a chain of whore houses." :D

TODD3465
September 23, 2004, 03:18 PM
You know most here don't sit on our asses and complain.

We just give our opinions here. If you don't like them too bad.

The work some of us do about taking back our rights would make Heston wet his depends.

If you want to have a fit about that I challange any board member of the NRA to show up in public and be photographed holding or next to any arm covered under the NFA that is not registered as such. Instead of black powder arms that are not even covered under the NFA.:rolleyes:

Deavis
September 23, 2004, 04:01 PM
Moderate gun control does work to an extent. It prevents criminals from legally obtaining firearms. Regulation of pornography works too, if there weren't any controls you could buy kiddie porn at any video store.

Criminals don't obtain guns legally. I believe you mean through legal channels, in which case that is fine. If we have a system that denies a man his 2nd amendment right after serving his sentence then we have to be willing to verify that we are not a felon when we purchase a gun. You cannot have it any other way unless you allow felons to have their 2nd amendment right back.

You got to remember that some of these comments are comming from kids still wet behind the ear in high school or college.

Don't discount the freshness a young or unitiated mind brings to the table. There are people younger than you and me that are twice as smart and 4 times as wise. Youthful energy tempered with a little guidance is far more powerful than an old wiseman without the drive to get off his keyboard.


Don't forget that those fat cats in washington got there from our votes. They will support the views of those who helped win the election.

We will never push an agneda until we have a large bankroll behind it. There is no George Soros for gun owners, just the NRA. I'd love to machine an MG and try to get the 5th circuit to recognize the 9th circuit decision, but I'm not at a position in my life where I can afford to do that. Retired at 40, why the hell not? Just out of school, I think not.

On a serious note, if someone has a site setup to fight the NFA or 86 FOPA, I'd like to know about it.

sendec
September 23, 2004, 04:16 PM
Nice to see the usual cliches getting trotted out. We have laws in large part because we cannot legislate common sense. We do have "moderate" legal control over speech, religion, voting, assembly and the like. "Moderate" gun control is eminently doable. Pass the ballistic equivalent of a driver's license exam, get the firearms equivalent of a car registration and you are good to go. Why not?

Be careful what you wish for. Does anybody really truly believe that the complete and total lack of any regulation of guns is a good idea? Keep in mind that we are looking at it from the perspective of the already law-abiding. Their are plenty of people out there who are not.

Ian
September 23, 2004, 07:24 PM
Does anybody really truly believe that the complete and total lack of any regulation of guns is a good idea?

Yes. Lots of us, actually.

Daemon688
September 23, 2004, 07:26 PM
Last post since this has gotten way off topic and now belongs in legal and political. :D

So? Neither am I, and that hasn't stopped me from partaking in political activism.

Well, I vote, participated in the caucuses, donate money, and have RKBA stickers on my car. That's as far as my political involvement goes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have laws preventing anyone under 21 to buy alcohol. We have laws preventing people from buying weed, cocaine, meth, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I haven't seen those laws prevent much of anybody from doing anything of the sort.

People get alcohol through either fake id's, parents, older siblings, etc. Hey, it's prevented me from buying alcohol. Like I said earlier, laws can be broken.

You know most here don't sit on our asses and complain.

We just give our opinions here. If you don't like them too bad.

I was generalizing amoungst most gun owners. Based on all the laws passed, to me it seems the gun-control movement has largely been winning out even with the 90 some million gun owners.

I know this forum is for opinions and that is why I am writing mine. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate here.

We don't have guns just for the sake of having them, or to drive around in them, or to smoke them. We have them to insure that our government does not start rounding up jews and executing them.

I understand that, but we still have our guns. Albeit the restrictions on them are steadily increasing. Where do we draw the line and say "We've tried to fight this through politically, now it's time to start the shooting?"

Chris Rhines
September 23, 2004, 07:45 PM
Does anybody really truly believe that the complete and total lack of any regulation of guns is a good idea? It amazes me that this question still comes up. Yes, I really truly think (not believe) that the complete and total lack of any (government) regulation of guns is a good idea. I thought that everyone knew that.

Keep in mind that we are looking at it from the perspective of the already law-abiding. I'm not particularly law-abiding, but I am particularly moral. Important difference.

Their are plenty of people out there who are not. The fact that there is a small subclass of idiots out there who can't act like responsible members of civilization shouldn't have any bearing on my civil liberties. Really, I though we had gotten past the whole collective punishment thing in grade school.

- Chris

Intune
September 23, 2004, 08:09 PM
Be careful what you wish for. Does anybody really truly believe that the complete and total lack of any regulation of guns is a good idea?

Chalk up another wish here. Planes, cars, boats, bars, stadiums, Nat parks, schools (GASP!) Etc. If you are one of the 99% of firearm owners who utilize them safely and wisely, carry on troop. If you're in the bad egg 1%, you have issues that someone will deal with. Might be a corrections officer or a funeral director. Some offenders get a choice. Some don't.

Machine guns (brrr!) Knob Creek (eek!) My 7yo with an smoking MP5 (No!) MG42's, quad 50's, M-60's, Vulcans, Stens & more. Pure terror at every firing line and wandering through the crowd. The death toll was staggering. Don't go. I think they're watching me now 'cause we made it out alive. Wait, I hear something... DON"T SHO................................................................... .............. ............ ....... ... .. .

















:rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
September 23, 2004, 09:20 PM
I think the case can be made for moderate gun control...

How about moderate racism? How about moderate A.I.D.S. rates? How about moderate murder? How about moderate quantities of child molesting? How about moderate violations of the Fourth Amendment?

sendec
September 23, 2004, 09:48 PM
When was the last time we actually had to overthrow our government?

You're more than welcome to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

You really want to fly on a plane that has been serviced by an uncertified mechanic, flown by an unlicensed pilot, through unregulated airspace? You really want to be examined by an uncertified doctor, who went to an unregulated school, who will perform unproven surgery, in an unaccredited hospital, using unevaluated pharmaceuticals administered by unlicensed nursing staff? You want to drive a car that meets no standards, on a road that was designed by an unlicensed engineer, surrounded by unlicensed drivers? You want the mentally ill felon down the street to own a machinegun?

Never mind, of course you're right, what was I thinking?

:uhoh:

PMDW
September 23, 2004, 09:56 PM
That has nothing to do with gun control.

Tamara
September 23, 2004, 10:05 PM
Be careful what you wish for. Does anybody really truly believe that the complete and total lack of any regulation of guns is a good idea? Keep in mind that we are looking at it from the perspective of the already law-abiding. Their are plenty of people out there who are not.

If it weren't for them, I wouldn't carry a gun, and neither would you. :p

Byron Quick
September 23, 2004, 10:51 PM
Keep in mind that we are looking at it from the perspective of the already law-abiding. Their are plenty of people out there who are not.

My God! There are people out there who are not law abiding. (Runs in circles, screams, and shouts) Let's make a law!

Tell me, is the circular logic (not to mention logic of the absurd) apparent to you?

Oh, Tamara...I'd still carry a gun. Some well-meaning law-abiding people might want to put me in prison because I jay walk, gamble with my money, or some such. I'll need the means to deal with such nosey parkers.

A person can be a so-called law-abiding person, a loving spouse and parent, a fervent supporter of God and country; and still be a tyrant. And I'll still carry a gun in the utopia when the lion lies down with the lamb. Just in case, Mr. Lion decides that his vote counts more than mine.

Byron Quick
September 23, 2004, 11:06 PM
You really want to be examined by an uncertified doctor, who went to an unregulated school, who will perform unproven surgery, in an unaccredited hospital, using unevaluated pharmaceuticals administered by unlicensed nursing staff?

sendec,

I'm a nurse. To become one, I was trained by nurses in a curriculum developed by nurses in a school accredited by an accreditation authority developed and run by nurses. The boards I took after nursing school were developed by nurses. The licensing board is composed of nurses.

All of this is accomplished without the intervention of bureaucrats. In fact, in many cases, it's accomplished in spite of them.

The state Nursing Practice Act? I'll give you one guess who wrote the bill and who supervises the investigation of violations as well as punishing those found guilty of violations.

So, you've got the choice of going to two hospitals in your anarchic dystopia. One has unlicensed everything. The other advertises that it is accredited by the leading independent hospital association, its doctors are trained and certified by the leading independent physicians' association, and its nurse are trained and certified by the leading independent nursing association. The other hospital is not and cannot falsely advertise that it does have such independent certification. Why not? Well, libertarians would tell you that such activity would be fraud and as such is one of the legitimate functions of government to prevent. Anarchists would just tell you that that's justifiable reason to raze the lying hospital and kill the administrators, so-called doctors, and so-called nurses.

Oh, and who said the roads wouldn't be regulated? If you were on my road then it would certainly be regulated. My property...my rules. Don't like them? Do business with someone else. (Or ride on someone else's roads.) Same thing goes for the rest of your sham argument.

Your example of untrained pilots would shortly cure itself:D As well as providing an example of Darwinism amongst those so foolish as to hire them.

Intune
September 24, 2004, 09:15 AM
You want the mentally ill felon down the street to own a machinegun?
Who told? Shhh, you’ll get him in trouble. Did you hear the one about the mentally ill felon cowboy who went into the saloon and began shooting? Deadwood. ;)

So none of us should own machine guns or a PSG-1 because of the potential of one idiot down the street? The 21st century practice of “no guns allowed” signs on banks & schools brings some folks a sense of comfort. I feel much better knowing that the deranged individual at my kids school with a 12 gauge will turn around and go home when he sees the signs. Now, if he had a machine gun...

Sorry, not I. Not into dangerous placebos.

:banghead:

Foreign Devil
September 24, 2004, 11:11 AM
Your example of untrained pilots would shortly cure itself

Capitol idea! After the immolation of a few hundred airline passengers the public will know which airlines are safe, and which ones only poor people will have to take.

You want less regs on guns and other civil libterties? Fine, I agree.

It's where libertarians and similar groups want complete and total deregulation of every economic activity, no matter the consequences, that they go completely into space. And judging from election turnouts I'm not the only one who feels this way.

As for the original question on the PSG-1, you could theoretically replace enough of it with domestic parts to make the imported gun legal.

Mute
September 24, 2004, 11:18 AM
You want the mentally ill felon down the street to own a machinegun?

And anti-gun laws are preventing this how?

sendec
September 24, 2004, 12:39 PM
More typical reactionary blather. The question was moderate control, not total annihilation, We can already own machineguns, I just want some options if the village idiot decides to go nuclear.


You've never had to clean up the mess, have y'all?

Intune
September 24, 2004, 05:26 PM
Ah, so it's a matter of housekeeping. ;)

Okay, I'll play. What do you consider "moderate" gun control laws?

Myself, if the village idjit happens to own a machine gun, I want the same type of stick to go beat him with. Repeatedly.

dustind
September 24, 2004, 06:41 PM
You really want to fly on a plane that has been serviced by an uncertified mechanic, flown by an unlicensed pilot, through unregulated airspace? Yes, and I plan on it. Uncertified planes have about the same safety statistics as certified ones. Airplane failures are very rarely the cause of accidents, even in the home built arena. The main causes are running out of fuel over a bad spot, doing acrobatics and other stunts at low altitude, and knowingly flying into bad weather.

Home built airplanes cost about one fifth as much to buy, less to maintain, and their performance is in another league compared to their certified counterparts.

You also can not blindly trust certified mechanics. There are horror stories all over the place about shoddy workmanship. Even with the government's intervention you have to research mechanics just like you do with cars.

Most airspace under 18,000 feet is uncontrolled.

Pilots licensing needs a lot of work. Many of the medical restrictions (such as blood pressure) go against what any medical doctors would recommend. IIRC admitting to occasionally taking Tylenol can get your license revoked.

There are a few gun control laws that I would not mind. For example no guns for dangerous people that have comitted crimes and are completely insane. No law would stop them, help their victims, or cause a difference in any statistics.

artherd
September 24, 2004, 11:27 PM
Come on people, planes trains and automobiles are NOT nessicary to insure that our government does not start rounding up and executing Jews/blacks/whites/gays/liberals/italians.


Yeah, join us in the 21st century. Modern, like 1930s Germany. Why would the populace need something so crass as a GUN in this modern time?

<rolls eyes>

cordex
September 25, 2004, 12:30 AM
More typical reactionary blather.
Another rewarding discussion begins ...
The question was moderate control, not total annihilation,
*snort*
Anyone know why do we keep using the word moderate when we mean arbitrary? Does it just sound better?
We can already own machineguns,
Of course - why would it concern you when the price of said weapons are inflated beyond all reason due to a pointlessly fixed supply and the guns themselves are taxed sometimes beyond the value of the weapon itself. (Anyone care to guess what a military surplus Sten would cost if there weren't laws against selling them to the public? I'm guessing $175 would be a reasonable price.)

I love it when statists try to explain the restrictions they want to place on me by saying "So you're trying to tell me you want serial killers and child molesters to get machine guns and nuclear weapons?" Never fails to get a laugh. Especially since they're perfectly comfortable and happy with serial killers and child molesters obtaining much more realistically dangerous tools for their trade.

PMDW
September 25, 2004, 12:38 AM
(Anyone care to guess what a military surplus Sten would cost if there weren't laws against selling them to the public? I'm guessing $175 would be a reasonable price.)

I was told the story of a man who bought a MAC for around $86 in the 80s. Adjusted for inflation, that is $151.51.

Don't Tread On Me
September 25, 2004, 02:35 AM
Can anyone post a link to, or a # of any Executive Order by any president, or a law passed by Congress, or an action of the BATFE or Justice Dept that Banned the PSG-1 BY NAME?


I would love to have that.

dustind
September 25, 2004, 04:12 AM
Don't Tread On Me: I believe it was Bill Clinton in 1998. I could be wrong. I hope that narrows it down for you. EDIT: http://www.nraila.org/NewSite/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=80 has some information. I think it may have been banned by the AWB, and then again by Bill Clinton in 1998 because people where using parts or changed the name of the PSG-1, maybe.

Anyone care to guess what a military surplus Sten would cost if there weren't laws against selling them to the public? I'm guessing $175 would be a reasonable price. I have found AK-47 parts kit for $59. If it was not for gun laws those parts kit would be a full blown select fire rifles(it would not have been torch cut), and the supply would be larger due to easier/no importing paper work.

Don't Tread On Me
September 25, 2004, 06:37 AM
Thanks for the link. It was banned by name in the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban aka AWB.


I can't imagine an EO would be needed to re-ban or make sure something is banned that was already banned by name. Since the AWB was alive and well in those years mentioned (98-99)


If that was the case, he would have pushed that EO to ban AR's of all kinds, and other weapons that had a slight change in appearance and a name change.


Also, it would be less of a legal matter, and more of an enforcement matter concerning the BATFE I would imagine. I am no expert, but I am just assuming.


I would love to own a PSG-1, IF it could be imported and IF I could afford it. I guess I will just have to settle for my USP.

dustind
September 25, 2004, 02:13 PM
EOs Only work against imports, so using them on ARs and such would have zero effect. I think people may have been bringing in PSG-1s(or the parts to make them) with a different name, or ones that did not have the non-PC parts, thus making it a new rifle. Kind of the like the AR-15A_s being banned by the AWB, so manufactures came out with the AR-15 PCR Politically Correct Rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "PSG-1 Banned?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!