This is the shit I'm talking about

[Morcheeba]

Dude #1
New look an the AR-15 12 inch free float rail magpul flip sights and magpul pmags


Dude #2
So u should totally let me shoot this lol


Dude #1
Lol you can idc might have to buy ammo tho that shit is a lot right now


Dude #3
Still got that AK for sale if you want it, Dude #1.


Dude #4
How much and what kind


Dude #3
Century arms tactical with a shit load of accessories and ammo. Looking at 25


Dude #3
AK has front muzzle impact device, quad rail, stubby grip, red dot sight, extended mag release, top rail cover, hogue grip with insert, six position collapsible stock, butt pad, three point sling, and extended bolt handle already installed on it. The case comes with it and is full of other accessories including but not limited to a bayonet and Grip Pod (steel military version). Also comes with 10 30 round mags and a 75 round drum all fully loaded. Everything is actually worth 3452 with the price increase. I'm just asking 2500


/end

So.. this is a conversation between some friends of mine on FB. I kinda feel shit using it on here, but.. this is one of the examples of how 'carelessly' the handling of high capacity weaponry is between so many.

This is what frightens me. P2P transactions. These boys like their toys, I've known "Dude #1 & Dude #3' for probably 8 years now and for the most part don't think them the psycho type.. but I also don't believe they should own these kinds of weapons.. I also strongly feel they should not be permitted to make private sales, or in this case network marketed sales of these types of weapons.

Just tossing this out there.

 

[Lucki]

Different types of weapons are subject to different kinds of sales (I believe). For example, if my friend wanted to sell me this:

all he'd have to do is make a note of it in the inventory log the ATF makes him keep... I'd possibly have to register it, possibly not. I'm a little hazy on the details for C&R firearms.

I think it's different for non-C&R firearms/assault rifles/handguns. Register and purchase them through authorized channels only. Could be wrong, but I think that's the case.

 

[Strid]

Seems like a pretty easy fix, at least on their end, for me; you report them to the police. Even if they are good people, they're treating a gun like a toy, not having a concern in the world for where it ends up after them, just caring they receive payment. Who knows where this gun will end up 5 years from now , maybe in a place it should be, or just maybe in a middle school lunchroom.

That said, if Dude#3 is actually legitimately selling the gun by U.S./state laws, then scratch that, it just has the appearance of him not doing so over the Internet.

 

[Lucki]

Found it! Took me forever, but here they are:

One of these is for the Mosin Nagant (the rifle I showed above), the other is for the AR-15 (the rifle you showed).

Spoiler:

The second bullet is for the rifle I showed. Cheap to buy in bulk and easy to get. Best of all, if you have a C&R license, they'll ship both the rifle and ammo right to your door!

 

[Morcheeba]

I won't even pretend to know any legalities behind gun sales, all I can say is that conversation struck me as 'wrong'. Dude #1 posted another pic with a truck bed full of semi-autos last night. I know these guys have been building their collection over the years, I know it's not cheap.. and I know they grew up around guns.. but 1st of all, Dude #1 is all of 23 maybe. And the way they discuss possibly selling to buddies, just the nonchalance makes me feel like they don't truly understand the importance and responsibility behind gun ownership. Okay so it's soooo easy to sell guns between "friends", like transferring a car title... again I don't know the laws, but THAT makes me think it's far too easy.. too lax. It just doesn't sit well with me =/

 

[Strid]

It's against the law, but who's going to protect the law in this case? This is what happens when you allow something to become so widespread in society; there is no way possible for the government to keep track and handle all of this. So really, in this scenario, the ball is in your court to make a play. Or do not make a play, if you've moved to America now, which I'm seeing hints of here and there, it's important that you assimilate properly, that means in this case, saying you care when in reality you do not (or at least enough to do anything about it); that's pretty typical of us.

I'll warn you though, when dealing with the police in the U.S., they should be ignored, completely, unless you think someone needs to be in jail. Simply put, treat them as if they have an incurable plague, unless you have no other option than to need them. I'm not saying to fear them, or even to respect them, but it doesn't take much to become a cop; a H.S. diploma and a few classroom training courses gets you a gun and a badge generally. When the requirements of that much power are so low, you need to be extremely careful.

 

[Morcheeba]

It's against the law, but who's going to protect the law in this case? This is what happens when you allow something to become so widespread in society; there is no way possible for the government to keep track and handle all of this. So really, in this scenario, the ball is in your court to make a play. Or do not make a play, if you've moved to America now, which I'm seeing hints of here and there, it's important that you assimilate properly, that means in this case, saying you care when in reality you do not (or at least enough to do anything about it); that's pretty typical of us.

I'll warn you though, when dealing with the police in the U.S., they should be ignored, completely, unless you think someone needs to be in jail. Simply put, treat them as if they have an incurable plague, unless you have no other option than to need them. I'm not saying to fear them, or even to respect them, but it doesn't take much to become a cop; a H.S. diploma and a few classroom training courses gets you a gun and a badge generally. When the requirements of that much power are so low, you need to be extremely careful.

1st) I do care, to an extent. yes, enough to discuss this, however I'm not an American citizen. I suppose I -could- make a report or bring this to the attention of....whom exactly? however...

2nd) I do not know the laws, which I had said. I wouldn't know the first thing about whom to contact regarding irresponsible weapon handling/sales.

if you've moved to America now, which I'm seeing hints of here and there

Do you think I'm considering moving state side?

I do think if these boys make illegal transactions they SHOULD be fined, and heavily.. and perhaps denied the ability to purchase in the new future at least. That wouldn't make me feel bad at all actually. These -toys- are expensive 'habits', so they can afford to pay for their stupidity in ignoring some severe laws if they can afford to buy these toys themselves.

 

[Strid]

Let me start by saying I wasn't intending to be hostile in any sort of the manner; what I said about assimilating was more just a sarcastic joke pointed at my American kin. As well, I thought I read somewhere a few days ago about you living in Maryland now, maybe I missed the joke of that before it turned to chat about syrup?

Anyway, you could first start by contacting your local authorities, tell them what's up, and see what you can do from there. If that seems fruitless, call the local police (non-emergency line) of the males in question and try that. Actually that may be the best route to take regardless.

Again, unless you're OK having these individuals arrested, do not do anything. Being arrested in the U.S., even if innocent of crime, comes with a huge cost to the individual so be sure to think it through.

 

[Raesvelg]

What laws would you have them arrested for breaking, exactly?

Treating a firearm like a toy (much the same as treating a car like a toy) is not illegal.

Private sales between individuals are also perfectly legal, assuming those individuals are both residents of the same state. Interstate commerce, of course, falls within the purview of the federal government.

 

[Strid]

That's correct, but misleadingly so. It happens, and it's often overlooked, but a gun of that type (in most, if not all states by now) has to have a license attached to it to trace it back to an owner. The way guns are here though, it's not a big deal to most people anymore. Generally speaking, if I sell someone a gun, I'm supposed to go through just as much trouble as an established dealer on checking them out and then add in the unregistration/new registration process. Typically people do not do that, it's unrealistic really, and then when someone dies from that weapon, or it's used to commit a crime, the police just come see me about it and figure it out then, you know, after the guy who shouldn't have had a gun, most likely, had the gun.

That said, I couldn't say right off the bat because there isn't a state given of the people, I'm just shooting in the dark that it's somewhere like CA, TX, or any lower southern state I have experience with life in. Since the Federal Assault Rifle Ban expired things aren't as clear as they used to be, but most states do have strict laws on citizen ownership of these types weapons, especially when it comes to sells and procurement.

 

[Morcheeba]

You see! I didn't know whether or not this was illegal but felt it was likely -fine-. The one looking to sell the AK is ex military and pushing 30, an otherwise responsible person so I'd assume he would go about a transfer through proper methods, however, it doesn't change my initial feelings, which are that this is wrong.

It's how I feel. I'm just so dead set against ownership of these weapons on a civilian level.

If I were to have tried to go through the proper agencies to have this investigated, well that could have resulted in wasted time. Worse than that, I'd hate to have someone harassed for something that -is- perfectly legal in your messed up gun culture ;p

 

[Lucki]

AR15: For $1000 you can get one
AK47: For $1000 you can get two and 300 rounds of ammo
Mosin-Nagant: For $1000 you can get 16 of them plus a Bulgarian armory's worth of surplus ammo

AR15: Can start brush fires with incendiary ammunition.
AK47: Can start brush fires by dropping it after the handguard catches fire.
Mosin-Nagant: Can start brush fires by firing from anything lower than a kneeling position.

AR15: Built with custom parts, nice trigger, all the bells and whistles $1500+
AK47: Modified with aftermarket and 1,000 rounds of ammo not even $1500
Mosin-Nagant: Stock, with 1,000 rounds maybe $300, meaning you get $1200 to spend on more beer

 

[Bajaratt]

I still don't see anything even irresponsible in the conversation that was posted. Guy #1 shows off his new purchase, guy #2 compliments him on it, then there's conversation as to selling a different gun to one of them; there's no reason why they should not be able to own these guns from the conversation. It's exactly the same as the following conversation:

Girl #1 - check out these new shoes I got.
Girl #2 - You should totally let me try those on lol
Girl #1 - You can, I don't care, but you'll have to buy socks, that shit is expensive right now
Girl #3 - still got that handbag if you want it Girl #1
Girl #4 - How much and what kind
Girl #3 - Specs on the handbag and price

There was nothing in the conversation that indicated that they were unaware of, or that they didn't care about the fact that the gun is potentially a deadly device or that they would be irresponsible at all. Guy #1 could apparently go get an AK just like Guy #4 said from an official dealer, but like Guy #4 said, it'd be a lot more expensive. The only thing that would be illegal (and horribly so) was if the AK was a full-auto and Guy #1 did not have an FFL.

It'd be nice if there was a way that didn't violate the first sale doctrine to control individual gun sales. I've never had a problem with things that would make it more effective to keep guns away from the people that shouldn't have them, as long as they're not restricting what you can actually buy. I'm in favor of better background checks and making them absolutely mandatory, because I know I can pass one and I'll still get my gun.

 

[Morcheeba]

No, that example isn't even close to similar, nvm the same. Guns are not comparable product to shoes other than the fact they're 'goods'.

I can't buy a 24 of MGD and resell to a buddy for equal or lesser value, or cigarettes for that matter.. or any paraphernalia. It doesn't matter how 'responsible' I am about the transaction, it doesn't matter if the person(s) looking to buy are 10 yrs my senior, therefore certainly of legal age. There are legal and licensed vendors for such sales and any civilians caught reselling those -goods- look at hefty fines or jail time... for beer! Not guns.

The discussion itself may be harmless, but you're obviously not understanding where I'm coming from.

I've never had a problem with things that would make it more effective to keep guns away from the people that shouldn't have them, as long as they're not restricting what you can actually buy.

I commend you on your first comment, but disagree on the second. Restricting what can be purchased is -exactly- what needs to happen, and on a grand scale. An extreme one if you will. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

 

[Bajaratt]

No, that example isn't even close to similar, nvm the same. Guns are not comparable product to shoes other than the fact their 'goods'.

But that's exactly the point, guns are simply goods. If everything in the conversation is the same, but only the specific name of what's being discussed is different, then it's only a personal bias that makes you say that it's not the same. I could use the same example using a car, food, a computer, video game, television, etc. They are all goods, they can all have the exact same conversation, but it's only when the topic is guns that you get in a snit.

I'm reminded of the guy(like 10 years ago) who made a white male college scholarship; literally the only requirement to apply was to be white and male. Several massive minority organizations cried foul and bitched about how everything about it was racist; and the guy came out and said that all he had done was take an existing scholarship for black people, and copied the entire mandate, only substituting out white for black.

It's the same kind of idea, just a personal bias is what's skewing one conversation as ok, while the other conversation is wrong.

I can't buy a 24 of MGD and resell to a buddy for equal or lesser value, or cigarettes for that matter.. or any paraphernalia. It doesn't matter how 'responsible' I am about the transaction, it doesn't matter if the person(s) looking to buy are 10 yrs my senior, therefore certainly of legal age. There are legal and licensed vendors for such sales and any civilians caught reselling those -goods- look at hefty fines or jail time... for beer! Not guns.

The discussion itself may be harmless, but you're obviously not understanding where I'm coming from.

I commend you on your first comment, but disagree on the second. Restricting what can be purchased is -exactly- what needs to happen, and on a grand scale. An extreme one if you will. Sorry, but that's just the way I feel.

No, I'm not understanding where you're coming from, because I don't think you've adequately explained exactly why some guns need to be banned. Yes, they can be used to kill people, yes, some people get them who should not be getting them, but why does the 99% of legal gun owners who are not committing crimes with them have to be forbidden from buying 1 specific type of gun to make up for the 1% of crazies who should be prevented from getting ANY guns in the first place?

I am a gun owner. In fact, I just bought a new gun this last Saturday. I am very responsible with my guns; they are always locked up(in safes, or with trigger locks for the long guns) and always left unloaded. I don't hunt, but I like to go out to a gun range every now and then and have some fun. I have no mental disorders, no criminal history(except for a single speeding ticket from 11 years ago). I have absolutely zero intention of even pointing one of my guns at a human or animal, unless they are a serious threat to me or someone else. I am what the vast majority of gun owners are, so why should I not be allowed to buy something that isn't significantly different than something I CAN buy?

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. They can be very dangerous when misused. But, if you practice proper safety techniques, they can be a lot of fun. But banning a specific model of gun, especially when it's no more dangerous than a thousand other models of gun, just screams foolishness and honestly comes off more fear and ignorance driven than based on facts.

I've had this conversation with other people I know. They (not saying you, necessarily), did not know that much about guns, and they were quite surprised that I owned several and was an enthusiast. A lot of what they were basing their decisions on are exactly what the politicians base their decisions on: movies and TV shows. They see people swinging around full-auto guns that never run out of bullets and never miss and think that's how it really is. The reality is people often miss (even world class shooters miss), full-autos are almost never used in crimes, and even the military-style large capacity magazines can run out very quickly. I've changed several people's minds on the subject just through explaining the reality of guns against what you see on TV and in movies. They're not enthusiasts like I am, but they're no longer thinking that guns are evil and need to be banned.

I don't think the solution is to get rid of guns. First of all, good luck with that. There's only a few hundred million of the registered things in the country. Second, even if it would solve anything, jumping right to it without trying the other avenues which will actually solve the true issues in the matter is careless. The real issue is people who should not be allowed to have any gun are getting them; so we need to come up with ways that will prevent them from getting any kind of firearm. See what kind of effect that has, if it doesn't have a significant impact, then move on to the next level solution and go from there.

When you have an issue with your computer, you don't just throw the whole thing out and never buy another as your first solution. You problem solve and find out what really needs fixing and then fix that.

 

[Morcheeba]

But that's exactly the point, guns are simply goods. If everything in the conversation is the same, but only the specific name of what's being discussed is different, then it's only a personal bias that makes you say that it's not the same.

Because, because, because, because... I do not agree with average civilians having access to most ALL guns. Period. No other explanation needed. This thread was 1 example of why I feel the way I do. This thread that I created was strictly based on my opinion, not asking for the opinion of others (but always open to it). Therefore I'm allowing myself personal bias... because because because. Black and white. The laws 'should' have be amended at the turn of the century, and every few decades since to match the advancement of weapon capability and requirement for property defense. However, you can not turn back the clocks. To say that the #1 reason behind keeping these sorts of weapons in circulation available to the general public is because they're not the cause of crime or the main means behind many crimes, or because it's your god given right is a moot point in my eyes. I personally don't care. I still think, believe strongly, that people should not own most all types of guns. If you're not in the police force, work a security job that grants you liberation to a license, in the military etc.. you.don't.need.them.

Guns are not just -goods-. They are means to destroy. Means that are unnecessary. Fun, sure...whatever, I guess for some. I don't care. Unnecessary and dangerous. I don't care to discuss statistics, they are just numbers supporters hide behind to defend their precious rights, rights to own weapons that are incredibly dangerous. There was a huge controversy here behind Sikhs carrying around ceremonial daggers. They argued that it was a religious right. They lost. There is not enough logic behind their argument.


Just one question though.. how is it "careless" to establish a ban on gun ownership (before trying other avenues)? How could it possibly be careless to pass laws requiring all those with registered arms to hand them in within 12 months or face serious fines/jail time should they get caught with them after the end date?

 

[Thelona]

Just one question though.. how is it "careless" to establish a ban on gun ownership (before trying other avenues)? How could it possibly be careless to pass laws requiring all those with registered arms to hand them in within 12 months or face serious fines/jail time should they get caught with them after the end date?

It's careless because if they did what you suggest, murder and violent crime rates would skyrocket.

Idk, if you haven't grown up or spent a good amount of time living in America, you just don't understand how MANY gun there are here.

The private market and "black market" is so huge it would take decades for the government to even make a dent. And in the meantime crime rates would skyrocket, just like they always do, it's not like this hasn't been tried over and over and over again in different city's. Because most every law abiding citizen who doesn't want a heavy fine or jail time would turn in their guns, and criminals already engaged in violent crime wouldn't.
Because they are already committing crimes they could serve 20 to life for, so what do they care about getting caught with an illegal gun, if they get caught the gun charge is the least of their worries. (Oh and also, they now know 98% of law abiding households are now defenseless, and there's nothing to stop them from getting whatever they need from your house. aslong as they can get in and out before cops show up, and depending on where you live that may take a good while.)

Its just like the example you used earlier

I can't buy a 24 of MGD and resell to a buddy for equal or lesser value, or cigarettes for that matter.. or any paraphernalia.

What are you talking about? ofcourse you can. Unless you were dumb enough to preform the transaction right infront of a cop. but noone would do that.

Why would you think the legality of something has any affect on someone's ability to do it?

Edit:: also sorry to hear our god given rights mean so little to you, but, although things ARE changing here, the vast majority of Americans still care very much about our silly rights. So you're not gonna see gun control anywhere near the level you're talking about anytime soon here. atleast not without some serious shit hitting the fan. Even the discussion of new gun control that's been ramping up here recently has militias in this country swelling in numbers.

however there are certain city's and counties in this country that have far stricter gun laws, even some approaching the lvl you're talking about. alot of those city's and counties have some of the highest murder rates in the country tho. : / gofigure

 

[Morcheeba]

I know I've mentioned this before, but it was in another discussion on the same topic...

If civis are not allowed by law to carry a weapon then how does not owning 1, or rather not owning 1 of the many types (in my perfect world) increase crime rates?

I have to assume it's because criminals would assume they'd be less likely to run into problems being the only ones with such guns. But as I have said before, if there was a very small list of guns available to those for property defense, they'd still be perfectly capable of defending themselves against crimes....

And if crime rates do in fact increase because there are less people 'able' to defend themselves (on the streets, in their vehicles etc), then it's safe to assume most of them are in fact criminals themselves for having those weapons on their person...

My example of alcohol had nothing to do with the ability to resell, it had everything to do with the asinine laws behind the resale of 1 vs the other.

 

[Raesvelg]

I saw an interesting piece on YouTube with Piers Morgan the other day, being the hypocritical grandstanding bombastic piece of shit that he is.

So he was attacking assault rifles (erroneously in one instance, but that's besides the point), and his guest challenged him on the issue of handguns.

To which Piers Morgan had no valid response.

Why?

Well, because he's a media shill, and if he came right out and attacked the 2nd Amendment at its core, he's probably have some serious consequences even among the people who are willing to ban assault rifles, and while the man is perfectly content to stand at the bully pulpit and, well, bully, put on the spot he has no spine.

In case you couldn't tell, I don't like Piers Morgan.

But his guest was right; long arms in general, and rifles (which includes "assault" rifles) are used in a tiny fraction of crimes, and functionally never necessary. You can make a huge stink about how it was used in the Sandy Hook shooting, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't need it; a handgun would have served his purpose just as easily.

What gets a lot of folks riled up when these things go down is that there are a lot of people who only come out and talk on the issue when they feel the need to "do something", and their logic is horribly, horribly flawed.

Banning assault rifles won't solve anything as far as mass shootings go. That's a cultural issue, not an armament issue. Banning high-capacity magazines might help a little, but in reality it would only force the average spree killer to spend a few hours practicing his reload technique.

That's what pisses the "pro-gun" side off so much. Most of them are quite aware of how meaningless the assault rifle ban was, how meaningless a new one would be, and how little crime is committed with long arms in general. There's a reason why excessively shortening the barrel on most long arms is illegal; it makes them concealable, which is a no-no.

The spree killers who use long arms do so because they don't care about getting caught, and a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun is marginally more effective than a handgun for their purposes.

This is only somewhat coherent, I realize, but I'm feeling lazy and content to ramble a little.

There's an interesting part in that little speech, when the Joker discusses "the plan".

Spree killings aren't part of the plan. Because nobody cares that 80-some-odd kids get killed by violence (mostly handguns) in Chicago every year, because those kids are poor minorities for the most part. What's horrifying is that apparently, that is part of the plan.

But a bunch of white kids in Connecticut get killed and suddenly guns are bad.

Chicago, incidentally, has very restrictive gun laws. Assault weapon ban? Check. High-capacity magazine ban? Check. Mandatory firearm permit? Check.

Number of people killed by guns in Chicago in 2011? 361.

Which, I might add, is way over the national average.

 

[Morcheeba]

Hand guns are among the types I think need to be banned. And if you're not allowed to conceal weapons, they're not bloody good for defense either.

A 9 yr old boy was shot and killed a few weeks back just down the street from us. He was shot through the house while watching cartoons after school (which is across the street). The housing complex has many subsidized (Government housing) and known for shading activity. It was assumed that whom ever shot up the house didn't know the last tenants had moved and a family with kids had moved in.

Regardless, my feelings on this topic have been the same for upwards of 10 years. I've spoke about this with my other half several times over the years. He grew up around guns, used specifically for hunting. The boys didn't get together to go shooting for fun. They didn't spend a ridiculous amount of money to upgrade their 'toys', because they weren't toys.. they were a means to feeding their families. He said to me a few days ago whenever he'd 'think' about guns growing up, it was only about hunting. He too thinks handguns and many many other guns need to be melted down and turned into better goods.

Handguns are just as dangerous as high capacity guns imo. Easily concealable being the #1 reason, and many have high firing rates too.

Crime rates will go up... what are the REAL reasons behind that? As I said in my last post, are criminals assuming those who would have had a gun to match their own for defense purposes no longer do? And if so, the argument that only criminals will have those weapons etc, would include those that didn't see themselves as the 'problem'.