PSG-1 Banned?

[GhostRider-Nine]

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."

 

[TODD3465]

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.

 

[Deavis]

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]

I'm old and completely dry behind the ears

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]

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]

Last post since this has gotten way off topic and now belongs in legal and political.

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]

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]

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................................................................... .............. ............ ....... ... .. .

 

[Standing Wolf]

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]

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?

 

[PMDW]

That has nothing to do with gun control.

 

[Tamara]

sendec,

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.

 

[Byron Quick]

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]

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 As well as providing an example of Darwinism amongst those so foolish as to hire them.

 

[Intune]

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]

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]

You want the mentally ill felon down the street to own a machinegun?

And anti-gun laws are preventing this how?

 

[sendec]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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.