Sawed off semi automatic machine gun with a silencer.

This phrase was in the affidavits I read from the civil suit against Blackwater. This and the "may have murdered" phrase leave me in quite a bit of doubt that anything of substance will come from this.

semi-automatic machined gun...? :shrug:

Or a very diminutive redundant machine gun

don't they sell kits or instructions to turn a machine gun into a semi-auto...?

and if they don't...i may have found my niche. :woohoo:

Gawd I love this country!


:rofl:

:dilemma:

usually it's the other way around that they have a problem with.

Unless the paperwork is in order and the tax paid, verboten.

but it would still be classified a machine gun under existing law. Forever.

As it is, just the auto-sears that were registered in time, are forever 'machine guns' until reduced to shavings or slag. Even though it's only a piece of metal, just a small component of a firearm. It qualifies as a 'machine gun', and the only way to change it's legal status is to destroy it.

And I wouldn't even do that, if I had one to dispose of, I'd hand it in to the BATFE and let them destroy it.

no gun-related phrase has ever caused more problems in the debate than "semi-automatic"

"Assault weapon" is right up there.

...as are "assault rifle" and "AK-47".

Jerks.

mark

It will boil down, in part, to their dubious practices when it comes to procuring weapons for their Iraqi contracts. They had an awful lot of full-auto over there and I'm hearing that they didn't have proper paperwork for exporting them from the States. They could have been buying some of them on the international market and importing them into Iraq.

They got busted a while back for what was essentially a straw purchase of NFA firearms courtesy of a Virginia police department. It would seem that corporations are also bound by the 1986 ban on new entries to the registry.

Yeah, some of the affidavits will read like a comic book. In the end I look for them to face some civil and criminal charges for some of their activities in Iraq.

Keith had a guest on who asserted "They had AK-47's. Only LEO and military can have those. They're illegal for everyone else." (paraphrased)

While I understand what he meant (they are incredibly expensive and require tedious paperwork,) what he said was technically untrue.

It wouldn't surprise me if they're acquiring NFA items that aren't open for civilian registration anymore, though.

Maybe the 'sawed off semi-automatic machinegun' means short barreled semi with silencer (of course, perfectly legal with NFA stamps).

The context was that BW was bypassing U.S. law by some perceived loophole in the NFA and the Hughes Amendment that didn't really exist. Look for whoever sold BW the weapons to take some heat as well. As far as I know, the only legal private sector purchaser of full-auto made after 1986 is a certain contractor who provides security for the nuclear industry. As in, the guys who provide courier services for weapons and weapon materials. BW never even came close to that status and are basically heavily armed and tactically proficient mall guards in the eyes of the law.

Some of the killings done by BW will be held to some tight scrutiny as well. Expect the military to barbecue the contractors over some of the shootings. It was indeed "the wild west" for a while in Iraq and anyone could get a contractor's gig as a security professional. Some of them were and are professionals in every sense of the word. Others, well, they were hired to meet a contract. Good, cheap, available; pick two.

Seems you would lose a lot of operating pressure.

Not at all, if you sawed off the gas tube :D (assuming a blow-back design)

Just the idea of wanting a sawed-off yet suppressed, fully automatic weapon sounds a lot like chrome-reverse hydraulic muffler bearings to me. Or gun terminology bingo.

and whoever is describing it just didn't know what they were talking about

Recoil driven, yes, though I think those are all "open bolt" weapons no longer legal in the US. Blowback driven, only if you were careful not to cut the gas tube. Either way though, you're going to lose a certain amount of muzzle velocity, possibly a lot depending on the round, how much was taken off the barrel, and the type of powder.

A much better question though is, what's with the silencers? A silencer isn't going to be truly effective on a machine gun or any kind of self-loading long gun. So why would they want it? Particularly when they obviously weren't that concerned about actually being "covert" in how they treated their operations.

My understanding is that a 'machine gun' is fully automatic, pretty much by definition?

Not an expert. Can anyone clarify? Or is that the point?

The president of the Cleveland Clinic said these congresspeople are "naive". He meant uninformed and ignorant of medical policy.