Discussion in 'Legal' started by usmarine0352_2005, Oct 8, 2009.
I don't see anything immoral with throwing in an off topic amendment.
You sure about that? There are semi-auto Thompson replicas for legal sale out there...and they're not the only ones...
They are currently made with a close bolt.
That is a ridiculous argument but we can have some fun with it. I propose to prove that gang bangers wouldn't own more MGs if they were "legal" (your term) than they own right now since they aren't "legal". Let's just assume that you actually knew that MGs are legal right now in most States and when you said "legal" you meant that they are simply inflated in price due to the Hughes Amendment.
Right now the price of MGs drives out much of the competition for them in the general gun population due to price. Most people who desire them get them despite some snags in the NFA paperwork from time to time. However we can discount that since we assume gangbangers face the same paperwork issues, like CLEO signoff, that normal people do.
Only people with considerable financial resources can afford to buy an M-16 that costs as much as a car. However, gang bangers are not normal people. You see, they make a lot of cash through illegal activities. Witness all their blingin gold, diamond grillz, flashy cars with big spinning wheels, and every other guady item the lucrative profits of the drug trade buy gang bangers. They are swimming in money, it is stashed in the rafters of their crack house. So, given their substancial financial liquidity and the current legality of MGs, the tax stamp and cost of an MG should not be a barrier to purchase.
Since they aren't buying them now, despite the financial ability to do so there is no reason to believe that they would by them if they were "legal" (as you put it) and cost less SINCE money is not an object to gang bangers. There must be another reason why the rich and dangerous gang bangers aren't toting some bullet hoses out to sell their rock on the corner. What could it be?
Oh yeah, I forgot... felons can't own guns legally. What was I thinking?
You fail. That "bling" money is "tax free under the table". If they went out and bought $15K+ full autos and had them REGISTERED/TAX STAMPED??? Don't you think the IRS would come a knockin' over such large purchases, especially WITH ATF records? Hint...catch a clue... There's a REASON they buy all that "blingage" crap. THAT's how they choose to spend their money because it's "under the table", yo dawg...fo shizzle...
At the upper levels, they may be wealthy, but sometimes the guy selling on the street corner makes less than min wage. Read "Freakonomics".
It's not like they would pass the background check or have the patience or desire to do the paperwork anyway.
I could see something along the lines of congress passing an anti-piracy law which allows registered ship captains, with appropriate training, to own FA weapons to combat piracy, and then every member of THR running out and getting an OUPV 6-pack. With some horrific headlines about a couple boatloads of Americans being slaughtered on the high seas, a pro-gun congressman could slip something through.
Most ranges have restrictions on the use of fullauto due to berms being overshot. But I would still like to see the '86 law repealed.
From 1934 to 1986, practically no crime with legally registered machineguns so they froze the registry to new guns. Duh. the crime problem with machine guns has been MGs stolen from the military or police (Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger), illegally imported guns (Empress Phoenix, Miami coke wars), or illegally manufactured guns (The Order). Freezing the legal registry with the Hughes admendment addressed none of those problems. But it did convince me that the goal of gun control is prohibition.
Separate names with a comma.