sounds like there will be more NFA trust being created.

Good man.

They're Precious accessories that magically endow people with the cajones to venture into the sunlight. Otherwise a lot of people would starve to death, afraid to go outside into a world filled with "thugs" and endless deadly threats in every single square foot.

without getting your posts deleted?

Oh my my! The ultra-sensitive but-oh-so TOUGH gun-relgionists are busy having my posts banned.

They're so TOUGH!

without getting deleted?

You'd better just alert on all my posts, "tough guy".

I don't alert on posts, I want everyone to see just how shrill some are around here.

Ooooooooooooh, you used the word tough guy, I'm impressed.

> Ooooooooooooh, you used the word tough guy, I'm impressed.

That's how you labeled yourself in another post, "tough guy".



Are you gun religionists being PURPOSELY uber-clueless to keep me amused? You guys post some hilarious drivel.

most honest straight forward answer you have ever done. May actually also be the first time a direct answer has been given to a question.

It protects no one. It upholds no law. All it does is hamper the exercise of individual rights.

Unless this is his form of protest against the NFA. Then we might have something to talk about. I don't think that's the case though.

make a gun more lethal.

What's the world coming to when sheriffs aren't helping flood the streets with title 2 firearms? How are gun owners expected to feel safe without silencers and sawed-off shotguns? Now, their guns are going to make a loud bang and wake up the missus when killing intruders and it's damned difficult trying to conceal a shotgun with a regular barrel.
Is everyone gonna have to establish a trust now?
How are pot growers expected to protect their crops without the right equipment? Dang!

and silencers there are unregulated there. I bet he mandates "freedom fries" be served in jail.
Notice he'll do it for machine guns, which only rich people can afford.

Nothing like a nice quiet shoot after a dish of foie gras.

Legal owners of title 2 firearms can barely take them out of the safe without having the ATF up their asses.

This is more evidence that the NFA needs to be repealed and replaced with something reasonable.

Oh right, they go to France and use them at their quiet ranges while awaiting their next contract. You guys crack me up sometimes. Silencers and sawed-off shotguns
Oh sorry, I forgot, they're listed in 2A, right?
I wonder if he refuses to sign off on sarin gas and anthrax too.

It is a noise pollution issue. Some hunting areas in Scandinavia require them. They are equally unregulated in New Zealand, Finland, and I read someplace, even UK. They really are not that quiet.
a short barreled shot gun is better than a standard length barrel for home defense.

umbrellas that fire ricin pellets are how real pros do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidents_involving_ricin

they take them to northeast Oklahoma and blow up old cars.

Furthermore, it's none of your or anyone else's business what they do with them, or why they want them. There has never been any legitimate reason to restrict these weapons in the way they are restricted. It is nothing except an inexcusable power grab and a money-making racket.

I'll await your citation to evidence.

Or your retraction.

Whatever.

Yeah all those gang members are just so eager to get their name, social, address, thumbprints, and so on in a federal registry, pay the rather heavy fees, and go through the necessary paperwork in order to get a silencer. Because without those they couldn't kill each other.

Don't want to disturb the neighbors. That's the 5th law of robotics.

true shooting each other during regular business hours would make it easier for them to sleep.

But even better than that would be drive bys that only hit other gang members. They seem to be great at hitting little kids. Not so good at hitting each other.

So really they need some time on the range.

Citation, please.

Good luck with that tactic...

And we should all have the right to own silencers and explosives?

and silencers? Any thug can make a silencer. They are not high tech. It was invented by a guy named Hiram Maxum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Percy_Maxim

If you get the chance, check out the Native American museum in La Junta, CO. It is a cool town. But then, the Rocky Mountain west has a lot of cool towns.

My question was about their legitimacy. Same with a sawed-off shotgun. I don't know what "thugs" have to do with the legitimacy of anything. Why would anyone want a sawed-off shotgun, except to cause as much damage as possible in a confined space?

Do you think we, as a society, should draw the line somewhere?

if thugs and gangsters use them for ill. Others don't. If they are not used for thuggish behaviour, then there is no social harm and no compelling state interest.

As for the shotgun, it is more maneuverable than a full sized one in close quarters. As a home defense gun it would be the next best thing if you have the misfortune of being a home invasion victim in Chicago. I have always figured that if you want to just scare them in surrendering or running, have the biggest most lethal looking gun there is. a SBS fits that bill much better than some stupid assed pink .25 ACP.
IIRC, didn't you say once that a shotgun is better for home defense than a pistol?

Why should they not be legal?

"Silencers" are, of course, rather badly named. I know this has been explained to you before. They are a safety device to help protect hearing, but they do not at all "silence" the sound of a firearm being discharged. They reduce it considerably, often to the point that one only needs simple ear plugs, and not full double-hearing-protection, and so it doesn't bother the neighbors a mile or more away. They also greatly increase the over-all size of a firearm.

As far as explosives, if you have the space to store them safely, why not? Do you really think the current fucktardery of laws really keeps anyone with criminal intent from obtaining/manufacturing their own explosives? History and current events say... no. All we need is laws to delineate and criminalize malicious intent and make the owners responsible for all damages incurred for carelessness.

just like in Europe?

This like saying you must have local LEO permission to buy a muffler for your car.... fucktarded at best, nanny-state authoritariansim/control freak-syndrome at worst.

Then yes. As a home defense weapon a sawed-off, or short-barreled shotgun would be more effective than a full-sized shotgun.

As for silencers, yes, they are alright as well. If I had the permit from the BATFE, I would have all of my pistols modified to accomodate a silencer for use at the local indoor range so as to save my (and others') hearing. Personally, I don't have any need for explosives, and I don't have the proper training, but I see no reason to restrict others who do have.

All I really expect is for the sheriff to do the job he is getting paid to do. He should not be able to arbitrarily decide which applications he is going to sign. From the article it states that he has no problem signing the applications for full auto weapons, why not for short barreled shotguns, silencers and explosives. Something is motivating him I just can't figure out what it is.

If people were up to something and were looking for lethal weapons to do the maximum damage why don't they just buy an AK-47 pistol or an AR-15 pistol. Both have barrels around 9" long and don't require any paperwork. No, the sheriff is up to something or is trying to make a point.

But you make it sound like he's part of some conspiracy. I would imagine he has his time cut out doing regular police work without signing off on any weaponry. Personally, I don't think paperwork should be involved with the purchase of any weapon. Either something is legal or illegal. My own ignorance astounds me at times. To think that such things are legal boggles the mind.
But if they are, then why should they only be available to some and not to all?

it's a conspiracy but his rational for not signing is weak so I question it. Some states do not allow the ownership of full auto weapons and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

For a regular weapon there isn't much paperwork but for an NFA weapon there is a pile of it, and the background check is more intrusive as well. They are legal. There are 100,000+ NFA weapons in the hands of civilians according to the national registry, that's a lot of fire power. Many are bought for investment reasons only, put in safe storage and never fired.

I think there is much we need to question about this world we live in. "Investment reasons" you say. I wonder what kind of society those who invest in them envisage. Are we really that fucked up that there are folk out there investing in such things?

and it is not uniquely US.

The whole collecting thing is really fascinating. I think squirrels do it best.

firepower from a small package, they are after all designed for military use. The people who collect these weapons do not look at the moral issues, they are only interested in making money not unlike a car collector or someone who invests in gold. It has less to do with being f***** up and more to do with investing in something that few can afford to own. As I stated in another post many of these investment weapons are fired very little or not at all.

Machine guns represent the very pinnacle of firearm design and therefore are appreciated by collectors. Since many of the guns are of WW2 design they also have a historical significance and should be preserved. They are very tightly controlled and expensive, they do not pose any real threat to civilians. They are very fun to shoot but are somewhat expensive as they go through ammo at an incredible rate.

http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

When I was a kid, we used to find a lot of mines washed up on the beaches. I remember thinking what fun it would have been to watch them explode. I wonder if anyone collects them.

I wouldn't think so and besides I believe they would be classified as an explosive device and would require special licensing. I never heard of anyone collecting active land mines.

use a .50 cal. You can shoot the mines from 1500m

Strangely I bet somewhere in this world there is somebody who does collect mines. Hopefully inert ones

We males are definitely an odd lot, the way we like to make things go bang and boom.

They're too fast, they kill, let's ban them!

Why ban things? Just don't buy them. The only thing I would ban, if it were possible, would be stupidity.
I don't condemn people for collecting "stuff". It seems to be a common human trait. I spent years collecting shit. Then I discovered that it all tied me down, preventing me from doing all the things I wanted to do. Then I discovered that it's a tough habit to kick, but I love working on it. Really helps me sort out what might come in handy one day from a pile of junk.

For starters, why some people feel the need to try to be the moral-police about things that are not harming anyone.

Get in the queue, please....

Now, back to those "things that are not harming anyone". What might they be, pray tell?

If the feds are going to put up roadblocks to legal ownership the sheriff needs to get off his lazy Ase and stop surfing for porn and do his job.

The process takes way too long now. I suppose I can understand not wanting to tie up resources and time but it's uncle Sam's fault, not the individual seeking a more progressive ownership of firearms and associated devices. Don't punish the tax payers.

"The process takes way too long now. I suppose I can understand not wanting to tie up resources and time but it's uncle Sam's fault, not the individual seeking a more progressive ownership of firearms and associated devices. Don't punish the tax payers."

The French got rid of a right wing president that pushed austerity, stricter gun laws, and anti Roma laws
The French have a good health care system
US right wingers try to hate all things French

Finland has the best public school system
Good universal health care system
Good banking regulations

I already mentioned their silencer regulations. I can think of one gun control advocate that comes by here once in a while that would use a similar argument.

Can you explain a legitimate reason for these things to be legal? Please, help me climb out of my pit of ignorance.

The sawed off shotgun

What a crock that is. Those poor hunters with such sensitive ears should take ear mufflers with them or switch to bows.
I share your on the sawed-off shotgun. In Sicily they call it a "lupara". Good for shooting a pack of wolves at close quarters.

Hollywood makes it sound like there is no sound which is total bullshit. Here is a pretty good article on the decibel level of your typical suppressor

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/

Regardless of the actual performance of the items in question, that is their name... "silencer".

I'm just saying calling them a silencer is misleading and those that know nothing about them will get the wrong impression, especially how Hollywood portrays them in movies.

the hunting area. And I'd guess (although I have no hunting experience) that too much ear muffling could hinder hunting by making it harder to hear the animal moving, and perhaps be a bit unsafe by preventing the hunter from hearing nearby people.

There are really good reasons to allow suppressors on hunting-caliber rifles in particular; I've yet to hear a good reason to ban them...

noise pollution, that is why some ranges in France, especially public ones, require them. Same with hunting in Finland.
In a liberal democracy, the question should not "should it be legal" the question is "is there a compelling interest in making it illegal". There is no compelling state interest. They don't make the pufft sound like on TV. They muffle sound enough not to damage your hearing, but they can still be heard.

They have no other purpose. This guy must have very sensitive ears, or crappy ear muffs. UK has them for airguns, which is pretty funny. Bunch of sissies those Brits. LOL
Now, about that sawed-off shotgun?!

what's wrong with reducing the noise output of a gun? We do it with cars, why not guns. Your position makes no sense. It's almost like you want hunters, target shooters, hell, just gun owners in general to suffer hearing damage.

I can see a legal short barreled shotgun for home defense. My Winchester 12g is a short barreled shotgun that stays in the house in our bedroom.

A quality silencer increases the precision of a firearm; controlling exiting muzzle gasses in a repeatable predictable fashion thus creating tighter shot groups. A silencer produces less noise pollution which protects the hearing of the user and bystanders. A silencer produces much less muzzle flash, which can be blinding or disorienting.

Shotguns are great guns for home defense... great multiple-projectile stopping power, missed shots are not going to travel over a thousand+ yards, and loads can be varied from less-lethal beanbags to birdshot to slugs. Unfortunately, most shotguns can be a bit unwieldy - my double barrel shotgun is 100% unsuitable for indoor home defense. A short barrel shotgun gives home-defense users of shotguns what is arguably the best choice in personal defense in a smaller package that can easily and quickly utilized in the hallways and close quarters of a residential home.

Personally, I don't see the big objection to silencers and short shotguns. Short shotguns are not some kind of wonder-uber-BFG10k type of weapons... they're just shotguns, except smaller. And even then they're not all that concealable. If I were trying to hide a gun for malicious intent, a pair of pistol would have MUCH higher capacity and more concealable.

You'd think that handguns would just come with built in silencers, especially if they help the aim, which I don't buy for one minute. And how come short barrel shotguns aren't at the top of everyone's Xmas list?

Your intentional ignorance is irrelevent to reality.

Good luck with that.

reading comprehension for the win.

This was clearly explained to you elsewhere. Your ignorance and feigned disingenuousness are no longer an excuse.

Vill I now be in ze next gruppenshot?

What could be more progressive in firearm rights than trusting our fellow citizens with perceived taboo devices. Mufflers IMHO are the most progressive. They afford a quieter environment for everyone. They are safer for new shooters allowing trainers to be heard easier. They let hunters have a more natural experience while keeping noise to a minimum. The benefits go on and on.

My daughter won't shoot my new sr22 but she loves my buddies suppressed p22.

SBR'S and mufflers offer the best of both worlds.

It's less and less likely these days that a sheriff, or other responsible person, would have specific information about the applicant that the background check wouldn't turn up (it seems like the law was written in a time when the sheriff generally would have a good idea of who's who and what's what in the county).

A better modern approach would be to simply have a copy of the application forwarded to the local CLEO during the ATF processing, and that person can ignore it or speak up if they actually do have something relevant to add...

"What, you didn't get the new amendments to the Adoption Action of 1981.....but we posted them on Facebook!"

Leave the Sheriff out of the equation.

IMHO, a gun trust is a better way to go and bypasses the need for head LEO sign-off.


I have no desire for a full auto but I do have a requirement for some suppressors and SBR's.

are devices that go on and on. I really want a lowly 22lr suppressor.

.22 is top of my list though I am thinking that what works for a .223 works just as well for 22LR.

I'd love to have one in .308 as well but, frankly, the FAL is already pretty damned long. I need to find a paratrooper model before I go adding several more inches to the barrel.