Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What can you do to a Saiga?


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#31 Tbird Man

Tbird Man

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 11 August 2003 - 08:44 AM

I assume this will also mean the current guns will be modifyable as well?

#32 shooter2

shooter2

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 399 posts

Posted 11 August 2003 - 04:27 PM

SaltPeter:

Check again... it's my understanding that the AWB does not affect the imported parts requirement. Even after the ban sunsets, the Saiga-12C won't be importable b/c it's not a "sporting" design and contains too many foreign parts. So to convert a standard -12 to -12C, you'd have to use 10 or fewer imported parts, just like you have to do converting the Saiga rifles today. US-made AK pistol grips and H/T/S will all fit the Saiga shotgun. The trick is finding that 5th US-made part - no big deal (AK stocks fit, too) unless you want to go with a real Russian folder.

Edited by shooter2, 11 August 2003 - 04:32 PM.


#33 USMC_LB

USMC_LB

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Location:TN

Posted 11 August 2003 - 06:16 PM

Before the AWB civilians could own folding or collapsible stocks. So the answer is YES and I am counting the days.....

LB

editing to add that Salty is correct about the '89 import ban. You would still need to make sure you only use 10 imported parts and everything else would have to be US.

Edited by USMC_LB, 11 August 2003 - 06:18 PM.

USMC_LB
03 Humpalot
Undeniable Truth of Life #7: "The truth should never be taken as a insult."

#34 Silverfox

Silverfox

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 54 posts
  • Location:Burlington,WI.,USA

Posted 24 August 2003 - 11:52 AM

well guys as long as we are engaged in a hypothetical disscusion about what may or may not happen and why , I'll drop my $.10 worth into the pot..
the couple of things we are sure of here is that the AWB is going to expire relatively soon and the import ban is not...
IMHO the question of whether or not there will be an additional AWB in the future is dependant on alot of factors and legislation that will be wholly different in perspective than the "slick willy bill" was..we may get another one , but it wont be over-night and it may not include all the same details..(this could be good or bad )
firstly I doubt that a new ban will be passed immediately after the sunset..way too much controversy considering the current state of the union(this should give us at least a couple of years while the two sides of this argument gather statistics etc. to use against each other)...is anyone up on Bush Jr.s stance on gun controll? , he will have some influence on the way this is handled and where the voting parties will swing their support , as long as he's in office...I dont think he is of the same mind Clinton was...the public's need to feel safe is of course a huge factor.. will the public feel safer worrying about their neighbors having guns or not having guns with more of a potential "outside" threat (vs. a percieved GREATER "inside" threat , ie: criminals) that wasnt there(in the public opinion) while Clinton "enjoyed" his time in washington...
If we get lucky and American companies start making and offering more parts for our imported guns when the AW ban expires(BECAUSE of the import ban).we will not only get better guns , but it will hopefully be seen to have a positive effect on American business and the economy , and that (potentially) will become a factor that can help our case (if we get a "slick" enough lawyer of course..lol..)..DS Arms is a great example of that with their mostly U.S. made FNs...
Considering the way the statistics read now(im not up on the specific numbers..sorry) , the vast majority of crimes commited with firearms , WHILE the AWB HAS BEEN in effect , has been with handguns , not long-guns.. that should be a factor in our favor if we can show that the ban on long-guns wasnt very effective in stopping or slowing down crime in the first place..not great for handgun enthusiasts but....
I could stretch this out for quite a while , but I am confident that the circumstances that got the original AWB to pass in the first place are demonstrably different now in todays public atmosphere(no more riots in L.A. , no Waco Texas incidents , we now have snipers running around with bolt action rifles etc. , for example) , and we now have hard evidence and statistics , to show just what the effectiveness of the ban WAS...add to that , all the gun owners who failed to stand up and take action (by voting etc.) last time , because they didnt believe the ban had a chance of actually passing(I must admit , I was one of em..sorry guys) , will most likely raise a bigger stink this time around..
OK!!..lol...to bottom line this finally...IMHO...we may get another AWB in the future..but it wont be immediately , and probably modified when and if it does get re-upped...AND , in the mean time we will definitely be able to do MORE with our guns than we are currently allowed to do...exactly what , will have to be defined by what we "crafty" americans can come up with during the sunset..anyone out there have any plans to start producing a larger variety of US made AK parts?how about a completely US made AK?..once we legally have em , they obviously cant take em away from us , no matter what laws they pass in the future(thanks to grandfather)...just be ready to do it (whatever is determined to be legal) as quickly as you can , before it has a chance to become illegal again...that may actually be my $.12 worth..lol..
p.s. Im just a dumb aircraft mechanic / cnc machinist from the midwest..i say dumb because aviation is not exactly an "opportunity rich" field to be involved in right now..lol...but i remember about 20 years ago , wisconsin went thru a big legal issue with the drinking age...it was lowered from 21 to 18 because people decided it was not fair to have our kids in the military , potentially ready to die for our country , and unable to legally drink a beer (wisconsin should actually be called the drunken state , not the dairy state..lol..we are home to several beer co.s as well as Harley Davidson)...it took , if I remember correctly , about 3 years for the public opinion to turn around and change the law back to 21 because the statistics of DUI deaths made a huge jump , and our kids where dieing BEFORE they went to war..
The point being , I have seen first hand that it takes time for the govt. to collect evidence and stats(think about the NTSB during aircraft crashes for example) and legislate any new laws , because a NEW law must be voted on under CURRENT opinion and facts , even if people are dieing by the hundreds...and I think that the legal scales are tipped more in our favor right now... IMHO!!...I would hope that , like KYSoldier suggests , if there is a future ban of some sort , it would be a matter of ADDITIONAL charges for CRIMINALS using these weapons IN A CRIME...

Edited by Silverfox, 24 August 2003 - 11:58 AM.


#35 Sheik Yerbouti

Sheik Yerbouti

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 13 October 2003 - 12:38 PM

Can you believe we, the gun owners of America, let this happen in the '90s?

Yes. As a country, the USA has lived the soft, easy life for so long, without threat of bodily harm, that we have become a bunch of wusses. We also have no belief system outside of instant gratification and comfort, so, ultimately, we will lose everything we have. The only real hope for the "American" ideal to survive is for the country to split up in smaller parts and one or more parts start taking its principles seriously. Unfortunately, due to the desire of bureauocracies for perpetuating themselves for the sake of existence, this will not happen, at least without violence. More likely, the USA will become another top-heavy socialist/fascist state. Already, the USA no longer qualifies as "land of the free". Heck, it's easier to buy machine guns in Sweden than in the USA.
---------------------------
Not all Arabs are Mohammedans. Not all Mohammedans are Arabs.

#36 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 13 October 2003 - 12:55 PM

blame the fools out in that california bank robbery for that. and ya'll should know by now that what uncle sam wants is what uncle sam gets...let me ask ya'll...arent all the antigun bills proposed by democrats? or is that just a misconception on my part?
Rockin the Saiga world since 2003

#37 Sheik Yerbouti

Sheik Yerbouti

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 20 October 2003 - 03:47 PM

read the law, and obey it, stick together, and maybe we can all keep them from making MORE because of idiots that dont and wont follow it.

Hey, bvamp, if the law says it's OK to kill Jews and enslave Negroes, should we obey those laws too?
---------------------------
Not all Arabs are Mohammedans. Not all Mohammedans are Arabs.

#38 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 21 October 2003 - 12:24 PM

everybody must think we should live in a big, chaotic, free-for-all state or some third world country. throw out all the laws, f$%k it. Im sure then we can all have machine guns and all those lovely gadgets and such to exact our punishments on all the wrong doers out there.
Rockin the Saiga world since 2003

#39 shotgun_lobotomy

shotgun_lobotomy

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 03:58 AM

hey i have a friend whos a gunsmith asking for a list of the parts needed to be us made to convert the s-12 to the ak look-alike. and if he made em since hes in the us it would count as us made? would he have to stamp em a certain way or would just like receipts count?
Posted Image
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

#40 Gaddis

Gaddis

    Squeeze my lemon 'till the juice runs down my leg

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,068 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 November 2003 - 07:39 PM

read the law, and obey it, stick together, and maybe we can all keep them from making MORE because of idiots that dont and wont follow it.

Hey, bvamp, if the law says it's OK to kill Jews and enslave Negroes, should we obey those laws too?

Only if their names are Schumer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, etc..

Or Simpson, Mohammed (or whatever the D.C. sniper's last name is?) & Malvo.

(I'm just kidding there, I'm not for killing anybody (even though (being a gunowner) the liberal media has me pegged as one already). :angry:

"Right On, Vas"


#41 VacuumReactor

VacuumReactor

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 26 November 2003 - 03:20 AM

throw out all the laws, f$%k it. Im sure then we can all have machine guns and all those lovely gadgets and such to exact our punishments on all the wrong doers out there.

Shit yeah, now you're talkin...

I think people as a whole would be alot nicer. You know, the guy behind in traffic that's foaming at the mouth because he left late and you're going the speed limit. He flies by and yells a threat and waves his fist.

They might think twice about that if you leveled your AK at them and said "I'm just going home...f*ck off, it's not that big of a deal".

#42 Shooter1

Shooter1

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 26 November 2003 - 11:22 AM

Sounds like you live in LA! :killer:

#43 Buck shott

Buck shott

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 56 posts

Posted 14 January 2004 - 02:55 PM

Armyman : I love shooting AK's more fun than AR's.

As for Bvamp:
It sounds like he is just a little to the right of Fienstien about the second ammendment. Just like the average american who is complaint, complacent and willing to give up his rights for goverment protection.

It not a question about "need" or "want" its a question of the Second Ammendment an Unanlieable rigth, To bear Arms and when I say arms I dont just mean guns guns. Arms of all kinds for war. Thats what the second ammendment is for, its the Teeth of the bill of rights. Sadly we have all been taken to the dentist by the government on this Ammendment.

Im not sure why your here on this forum Bvamp. Probably just to irritate others because of your lack of ability to do anything. Because you always follow all the rules all the time. Perhaps its just the fact your from Newyork city also known as the Kalifornia of the east.


In any case I don't agree with any thing you say but I Die to protect your right to say them.


Buck

#44 fmsniper

fmsniper

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 04 February 2004 - 03:19 PM

I had my 22 inch 12 gauge reamed out and tapped to except threaded chokes, I have modified, full and rifled.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  s1.jpg   72.02KB   8 downloads


#45 rock47

rock47

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 14 February 2004 - 05:19 AM

A right is not given, a freeman has rights!

A slave asks, a slave has no rights!

A Freeman does not lose his rights, a right is eternal!

A slave gains and loses freedoms based on his owners feelings.

Liberals take away rights based on their feelings.

Conservatives fight to preserve rights! (they need to do better at this in the future.)

A slave has no rights!

Rights are not governed by laws, laws defend rights!

A law that takes away a right, has taken away freedom.

Freedom is not free.

Any law that takes away a freedom is the begining of mass slavery.

Only a master of slaves can give or take away RIGHTS!

Freemen live free! Freemen have rights! Rights are freedom!

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT< I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOUT: freedom...........................................FREEDOM!

Edited by rock47, 17 February 2004 - 12:57 AM.

  • Dracozny likes this

#46 Lovegasoline

Lovegasoline

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 25 March 2004 - 06:38 PM

[quote name='Bvamp' date='May 31 2003, 07:41 PM'][quote]I live in NY, k? what you DONT seem to know is the only thing you CANT buy here legally is an A-bomb. Paperwork is a nessecary evil to this country, and I'll tell ya, all those gun laws they have now are fine with me. I do a lot of travelling, and I havent seen the quality or quantity of arms equalled in my state yet. Must be something with that green stuff called money. I can carry anywhere in the state, but why do i want to? what DO i need an AK-47 inside city limits for? no range in a city will let you shoot a rifle anyway unless its taking pistol rounds. I hear the arguement from the "nuts" out there that if the military can have it...or that uncle sam dont want us to protect ourselves. know what? bullshit.[/quote]
Bvamp,
Allow me to correct some of your factual errors as well as toss my opinion out on other issues you touched upon.

You are incorrect about being able to legally buy anything within NYC limits (other than A-bombs).

You are incorrect that no range within the city limits will let you shoot a rifle. In Manhattan, at West Side Pistol and Rifle Range on 20W. 20th St. you can shoot a .22 rifle. They will even be glad to rent you one or provide its use for free if you are a member. They even have a Rifle Only Range Membership plan.

I live in Brooklyn and I would LOVE to own an AK and a Dragunov. Unfortunately I cannot and my 2nd ammendment rights have been infringed. Although atthis point in time there is no place to legally shoot these 2 weapons within city limits, why should that matter ? I'd gladly shoot at one of the ranges outside the city and keep them safely stored in my home in Brooklyn, where I can clean, maintain, admire, and safely store them as well as take personal responsibility for them. I'm a climber as well: I store TONS of my bigwall gear here at my Brooklyn residence although the nearest bigwall is in Yosemite,CA.

It appears that you have subscribed to a conception of Mankind that is inconsistant with the constitution and more closely aligns with anti-RKBA and anti-gun positions.

Why do you place trust so easily in the military and the police as opposed to the citizenry? I hold no undue paranoia regarding the latter two establishments. However, history will serve you well with numerous examples of why those institutions should be feared and kept in check...history will also provide you with bountiful examples of viscious wholesale slaughter administered by state police and military forces...in contemporary times and other eras. If you wish to find 'nuts' you will find as many in those establishments as among the general population, and you will also find them historically in the individuals and groups that control police and military forces...their political bosses.

Here is a quick copy of a recent post to another forum:



One Essential Thing I Do Not Understand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
...is the mistrust of Human Nature and the American tradition that is INHERENT in gun control advocates.
If it is to be believed that law abiding American citizens as a PEOPLE cannot be trusted to own and bear arms, that We The People of this nation are incapable of handling firearms with respect; if it is to be believed that We The People cannot be responsible for firearms without shooting each other, shooting ourselves, or placing our children in direct & unconscionable peril...than how can We The (supposedly irresponsible and incompetent) People be trusted to administer a Democracy? How can such a conception of Man be trusted to handle ANYTHING that can even remotely present a hazard or a challange...such as garden shears? Or gasoline at the pump? Sharp objects? Machinery? Fire? Indeed, how can we be trusted to traverse the hazards of the modern world (or the natural environment for that matter) without bringing about our own catastrophic demise? How can such a conception of Man be trusted to speak freely and listen to the ideas of others without immediately pursuing the most degenerate irresponsible path and plunging headfirst into the ruin of self and others?
How can a conception of Man that so DEEPLY distrusts our Human Nature and abilities, and that places a prime belief in our incompetence and moral degeneracy...how can such a conception place a trust in Man to govern his own affairs or democratically govern the affairs of his Nation? Shouldn't such a conception of Man, when confronted with the living article, instantly place him under lock and key preventing him from having any influence on the coarse of events that make up his life or that of his Nation? Such a Man is only capable of existing in slavery or as a closely guarded and completely controlled subject.
Under the sway of such a diminished view of Man, this Nation never would have been conceived. Instead we would have gotten "We the People are incompetent and morally degenerate, undeserving and incapable of governing our own affairs and are in need of wiser guardians to rule us. We should never be allowed to rein free, but rather we should be always chained and under the yoke of our masters, lest we get into trouble and cause harm to ourselves and others".
If one cannot be trusted with firearms, how can one POSSIBLY be trusted with all the other responsibilities and duties of Democracy….we’d completely f-ck that up as well.


Cheers,
Lovegasoline

#47 NedPepper

NedPepper

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 March 2004 - 08:13 PM

As it was explained in my class for a concealed weapon's permit, hollow points are legal to carry (duh) but if used in a crime, they can tack on an additional charge (something about having especially destructive ammo). I'm sure this is a KY only state law that is rarely even implemented, but the logic seems sound to me.


Makes zero sense to me. I think the whole concept concerning the design of a bullet is to be as destructive as possible. "I never meant to kill him.. I just wanted all his bodily functions and brainwaves that were about to cause my death to cease instantly!"

I know what you mean but I just hate add-on laws. The basic crime commited should be all that is needed.

My prediction is that there will be a new case of gun violence that will jump into the headlines that will spur on the next ASB before Sept.

I agree with the Shiek..my country has turned into soft-bellies. "Look! There's a crack in the sidewalk. Someone call the sidewalk police! There should be a law against that! SUUUUUU!" yeesh.

#48 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 25 March 2004 - 08:42 PM

Lovegasoline:

Where did I ever say that I was living IN New York CITY?

Ill say this again on my own behalf....dont assume too much about people. You dont know me, where I live, what I have, what I do. So dont assume you do, please. Also, .22 rimfire is nowhere near what i was referring to with the term RIFLE. I would have said 22. Again, dont assume you know me. I will be sure to be a little more clear for you in the future.

NedPepper:

I think your prediction is correct, and may have already been the fodder for the renewal bill to be written, and addendums to it put into another vote as well that would apply to it and make life tons worse for legal gun holders.
Rockin the Saiga world since 2003

#49 Lovegasoline

Lovegasoline

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 25 March 2004 - 10:43 PM

Lovegasoline:

Where did I ever say that I was living IN New York CITY?

Ill say this again on my own behalf....dont assume too much about people. You dont know me, where I live, what I have, what I do. So dont assume you do, please. Also, .22 rimfire is nowhere near what i was referring to with the term RIFLE. I would have said 22. Again, dont assume you know me. I will be sure to be a little more clear for you in the future.

NedPepper:

I think your prediction is correct, and may have already been the fodder for the renewal bill to be written, and addendums to it put into another vote as well that would apply to it and make life tons worse for legal gun holders.

Bvamp,
I'm not assuming, I'm going by what you wrote.
You wrote, "Paperwork is a nessecary evil to this country, and I'll tell ya, all those gun laws they have now are fine with me."
From YOUR words, it appears you are comfortable with present day gun legislation in the USA. We'll they're not fine with me.

Many people would like CCW in NYC but unfortunately the permit system is one of priviledge, wealth, & connections, not a system based on citizen's rights...if you are comfortable with these gun laws, than you are comfortable with a government which is one of rulers and subjects: those who are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights and those who are denied the exercise of their constitutional rights. "All men are created equal" except that some are more equal than others when it comes to gun rights.

You wrote that you can carry anywhere in the State (NY). "Anywhere in the State," I'm assuming includes NYC (if not, correct me if you wrote falsely). Your comments suggest an acceptance of governance that is alien to the Constitution and is representative of the very sort of injustices that inspired the Revolution and the Constitution in the first place. In NYC the BS piles on so thick you can't see over the top of the pile. Just last summer one of our esteemed politicians (James Davis [sic?]) was assasinated inside City Hall. Politician Davis was known for his pet project of being an extremely strong anti-gun advocate. He was carrying concealed on his waist when he was killed. He was a correctional officer previously and therefor was 'granted' a permit to carry. Obviously he felt strongly enough the benefits of gun ownership and CCW that he continued to carry daily secretly while advocating gun control publically. I suppose he just didn't get around to taxing us for tea or taxing us in general and denying us the right to vote as well. Brooklyn is much better off without such politicians of principle as the esteemd Mr. Davis: good riddance.

What is the difference between an AK47 in the city (insert whatever city you wish) and a Remington 870 pump 12g or a Browning BAR Mark II?

"im SURE we will all have plenty of weapons to trade around for many years to come if they banned the sale of them tomorrow". And if they ban the private ownership of them?

"no range in a city will let you shoot a rifle". I'm not assuming you live in NYC: I'm relaying the reality of city dwelling (NYC) and 2nd ammendmant.

Bvamp, you are correct in that I little know you and share no history with you on this forum or elsewhere (I just joined this forum recently). I can only go by what I read that comes from your hand. Maybe you reflected deeply before you wrote, maybe you didn't and wrote light off the cuff. I've come full face against the juggernaut of NYC gun control, a city that is monolithically anti-gun. I saw inaccuracies in what you wrote as well as an attitude of accomodation with the current injustices of gun laws. If I misread you I applogize.
Clarity in this sort of subject is a virtue....most 2nd Ammendment opponents proceed primarily by muddying the waters and appealing to the emotions with sensation & fear ...

Cheers,
Neal

#50 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 26 March 2004 - 11:10 AM

What is the difference between an AK47 in the city (insert whatever city you wish) and a Remington 870 pump 12g or a Browning BAR Mark II?


along the lines of what I was goin on about before....the difference is about 55 rounds going through the apartment building you live in. (If you are unfortunate enough to have to rent, that is, which most do in NYC)

I will also add here that NYC is a place of doing business. Its like one big office. You dont bring guns into work. So they can ban whatever they want down there. I dont need, nor do I want to visit NYC for any reason. I dont like the smell, the noise, or the people there. It sounds like you need to get out of there yourself. Move north to putnam county or something, buy some land. Buy a gun vault and fill it. There is no reason you need an AK-47 inside city limits. Wanna have one on your wall? get a demilled one. So what? It still LOOKS cool. Or why else did you want one anyway? Im all for lets all have 50 million guns each, but well, I can SEE why there are rules about it. Lets just hope they can make a clear cut set of them, and not have to keep making more of them because of idiots out there.

Your example of the gun-control pistol packing guy is an example. They will now argue that the guy that shot him got that gun legally and used it maliciously. People need to stop argueing about some stupid paperwork or city limits thing and get to the real issue. There ARE 300 million ppl in this country you know....lots can go wrong. Only one person needs to screw up to ruin a good thing for the rest of us. We need to make laws to punish the people that do wrong, and when they do, hang them out to dry, but not laws to make the people in the right wrong. Where is the line drawn? I think thats most of the problem with gun control.
Rockin the Saiga world since 2003

#51 Lovegasoline

Lovegasoline

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 26 March 2004 - 05:27 PM

What is the difference between an AK47 in the city (insert whatever city you wish) and a Remington 870 pump 12g or a Browning BAR Mark II?


along the lines of what I was goin on about before....the difference is about 55 rounds going through the apartment building you live in. (If you are unfortunate enough to have to rent, that is, which most do in NYC)

I will also add here that NYC is a place of doing business. Its like one big office. You dont bring guns into work. So they can ban whatever they want down there. I dont need, nor do I want to visit NYC for any reason. I dont like the smell, the noise, or the people there. It sounds like you need to get out of there yourself. Move north to putnam county or something, buy some land. Buy a gun vault and fill it. There is no reason you need an AK-47 inside city limits. Wanna have one on your wall? get a demilled one. So what? It still LOOKS cool. Or why else did you want one anyway? Im all for lets all have 50 million guns each, but well, I can SEE why there are rules about it. Lets just hope they can make a clear cut set of them, and not have to keep making more of them because of idiots out there.

Your example of the gun-control pistol packing guy is an example. They will now argue that the guy that shot him got that gun legally and used it maliciously. People need to stop argueing about some stupid paperwork or city limits thing and get to the real issue. There ARE 300 million ppl in this country you know....lots can go wrong. Only one person needs to screw up to ruin a good thing for the rest of us. We need to make laws to punish the people that do wrong, and when they do, hang them out to dry, but not laws to make the people in the right wrong. Where is the line drawn? I think thats most of the problem with gun control.

I suppose I haven't made myself clear, I'm refering to the semi-auto version of the AK, the mini-14, the semi-auto AR series,etc.,etc. These firearms are also banned in the city and are incapable of automatic fire.
I don't follow the logic of the city is one big office and therefore you do not need to own a firearm. On the contrary, the city is a place of greater violence then Dutchess county and if there is anyplace where one has a need for self defense, it is in the city.

"I dont like the smell, the noise, or the people there." pretty overarching statement. You do not like ANY NYC'rs?

I differ from you in that I do not beleive in denying law abiding citizens their constitutionl rights just because they happen to live in a city as opposed to country. Gun ownership ceases to be a right and then becomes a piviledge based on the whims of those in power.
The example of the pistol packing guy I gave is another example of this. He (also an aspiring poitical candidate) was ushered into City Hall and did not have to go through the metal detector, as his victim (the soon to be assassinated counselman) brought him in with him. In other words, they (along with Mayor Bloomberg) bypassed the metal detectors. Security does not work when done in half measures. I paid for City Hall with my tax dollars like all other NYC'ers have: let Bloomberg and all the politicians walk through the metal detector and have their crotch probed witht the wand. Politicians are not exempt, nor are they exempt from breaking the law or commiting murder ( Julius Caeser's murder et al). The system doesn't deny every law abiding system their constitutional rights, it denies some while priviledging others. And yes, as a United States citizen I have a problem with that.

" There ARE 300 million ppl in this country you know....lots can go wrong. Only one person needs to screw up to ruin a good thing for the rest of us. "
The country wasn't founded on total security...a disarmed Police State where personal rights are absent can offer you more security. The country was founded on Liberty and Freedom and you will necessarily have to give up some measure of security to have freedom..that is the sacrifice and priority on which the country was founded. There will always be nutcases and unlawful citizens using weapons to commit crimes....but that is not justification to deny law abiding citizens their constitutional rights. Those 300 million people, as long as they are law abidig citizens are all entitled to exercise their 2nd Ammendment rights, irregardless of race, religion, sex, or creed...just as you are able to exercise your RKBA rights. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you need to join the anti-2nd Ammendmant folks so you can dipense the RKBA as priviledge to a select few rather than a right....and help the US along towards Police State status.

I was just looking over Justice Department crime statisitics: the percentage of Military type weapons (i.e. assualt weapons) used to commit crimes in the US was about 2% of all weapons. The logic for banning a Dragunov or a semi auto AK in a city(or nation) does nothing to reduce crime and is nothing more than political appeasement of misinformed individuals and makes it appear as if ineffectual politicians are doing something to stem the flow of crime(perhaps such as yourself?).
Cheers,
Neal

Cheers,
Neal

#52 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 28 March 2004 - 02:55 PM

Im sorry. When they banned guns for the most part in NYC, and went after gangs and put ppl in JAIL for illegal weapons, NYC became a WHOLE lot better of a place to be in. In dense cities, yes, I DO think THAT is a place there should be tight laws. I live out in the woods though. I never commited a violent act in my life against another person, and I own a lot of firearms legally. So I have to jump through a couple hoops, or pay a little more for preban. So what. The pistol laws they just changed here wont really hurt me, but I know a couple of major collectors that have hundreds of pistols that fall into the new law. That I dont think is right. Again, there needs to be a simple set of laws within reason. No laws is not the answer. Getting rid of guns isnt the answer either. That is probably the main reason America has only been invaded by a foreign power twice. (war of 1812 and the mexican war). And we proceded to kick the shit outta them. We all need something nice and simple to go by, is about it. Take the old west. Marshalls had to ban guns in town in some of the wilder places. Same thing. If we all keep saying screw you, we dont want ANY laws....well, thats not going to work obviously. We as responsible gun owners/collectors all need to speak up and get the NRA and our political representatives to make a clear-cut set of laws that everyone can live with. If we dont, we will see huge taxes every couple years on our collections, fewer places to shoot, and more crooks with guns than citizens. In my area, there was always houses being robbed when I was younger. My father and I regularly shooting I guess let whoever was doing it know they didnt want to come see what we had. We need gun OWNERS to make the laws. Everything will make sense, and if its done right, that will be the last major changes to the gun laws made I think. Screaming NO GUN LAWS is NOT going to get any of us anything good. Its a necessary part of the game. There are laws to drive by right? How about game laws? Both of those sets of laws were written by experts in thier fields. (and the insurance companies) Something to think about guys.
  • IronRonin likes this
Rockin the Saiga world since 2003

#53 GTwannabe

GTwannabe

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 275 posts

Posted 05 June 2004 - 07:57 AM

On the contrary, the city is a place of greater violence then Dutchess county and if there is anyplace where one has a need for self defense, it is in the city.


The city of Poughkeepsie has more crime per square foot than NYC! :eek:

#54 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 06 June 2004 - 09:32 PM

dutchess county is an armed camp despite the heavy liberals here...go figure that one out!

Edited by Bvamp, 06 June 2004 - 09:45 PM.

Rockin the Saiga world since 2003

#55 rock47

rock47

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 280 posts

Posted 30 July 2004 - 12:53 PM

A right is not given, it is! And has been in existance, even before you were.

#56 mickporno

mickporno

    MICK PORNO

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:richmond va

Posted 04 August 2004 - 11:50 PM

NYC is a place of doing business. Its like one big office. You dont bring guns into work.




THE HELL I DON'T!!!... :blues:
Mick Porno
Richmond Va.


Guns don't kill people...gaping holes in vital organs kill people.

#57 Sct1886

Sct1886

    Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 14 August 2004 - 07:27 PM

Bvamp: You and most Liberals seem to be oblivious of the ancient but simple concept of accountability. Real accountability would stop most crimminal activity if used wisely. Legislate immoral behavior not inanimate objects.

#58 inparidel

inparidel

    Executive Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 15 August 2004 - 02:17 PM

As a lawyer, I did not want to do anything that would jeopardioze my career or my freedom, so I dropped the nice folks at the BATFE a letter asking about a cohate stock for more control in the IDPA tactical matches I do at a club. The Miami BATFE office gave me the same response that the poster above got. The BATFE ruled that the cohate on a Siaga would make an AW as per the ban. The 8rd matter is like the cohate deal. The BATFE "rules" o various interpretations of gn legislation. Even though there is no clear language on the subjects, as the first post shows, the BATFE rules on things to "fill in the blanks" apparently. The cohate decision came buried in the BATFE's publication of their public meetings they hold prior to making decisions. There was one soccer mom mentality "commenter" that was making reference to putting cohates on rifles that could not be imported with pistol grips The comenter said thet in their view putting a thumbhole stock on a rifle after it is imported serves as a PG for all intents and purposes, and therefore makes it unimportable. So, changing it after importation is the same thing. The BATFE respoonded with, "we agree." So, over an importation issue and thumbhole stocks, we ended up with a cohate on a Saiga makes it an AW. That one sentence is buried in hundreds of pages of BATFE "comments."

The 8 rd issue is also a matter of the BATFE's "interpretation" of import issues. The BATFE big-wigs decided--for us--that a shotgun with more than a 5 rd capacity has no "sporting" purpose. Unfortunately, that flies in the face of the fact that IDPA competition is an INTERNATIONAL sport with tens of thousands of participants. I would like to go to court with the BATFE on that one, but, as the law reads, it's the clueless BATFE secretary and officers that make the call, no matter ho ignorant or uninformed thay are.
Aks for me

#59 kmoore

kmoore

    Citizen

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 18 August 2004 - 06:31 PM

inparidel,

I appreciate your comments on this subject. Please don't take the following criticism as a personal attack.

The internet is full of opinion, advice, misdirection, etc. Some well intended, some in ignorance, some as an intentional, some genuine. IF these are published decisions, could you point to a source or link?

Until then, I'll take your comments with a grain of salt and consider them as "internet knowledge". But other things make me wonder. ur spellin is kweshonable, IDPA does not host 3 gun matches (IPSC or USPSA does).

Ronswin (who just left for the big sandbox) had an experience talking with an ATF agent. As it is second hand knowledge, I will not post the details. It differs from your info.

Ron, Good luck, hope all is well and you are safe. If you read this and get a chance, you should post your experience here, or in a new thread.

Shoot straight

#60 Ben Vampatella

Ben Vampatella

    Top Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Citrus County, Florida

Posted 18 August 2004 - 10:19 PM

inparidel: the fact of the matter is with the over 5 rounds in shotgun magazine law, it specifically forgot to mention detachable magazines completely. detachable magazines, because of the fact that it is detachable and is a bad trait and is counted for that very reason and not round counts, SHOULD have a cap limit of 10 rounds, according to the semi-automatic firearm laws, not 5 or 8. how *I* read that whole schpeal is you are choosing the detachable magazine with semi-auto over the pistol grip stock semi auto regardless of the number of rounds, it is detachable and definately not fixed, and that BASICALLY means they consider all detachable shotgun mags apart from fixed tube mags. the guns termed as Destructive Devices didnt fit at the time, and would the saiga12 fit into there is the real question? I dont think it would if its under ten rounds according to how THEY CHOSE to word it. looks pretty clear to me. unspecified doesnt mean anything they say. it means no ruling on it...so....the BATF can say whatever it wants, its who is willing to put thier money and name on the line to prove them otherwise in court. they are not above the law, and neither are we. I say they should hold to the letter of it. there is no interpretation that can fit into the fixed shotgun magazine term they chose to use in the law, and that is pretty much how I see it. make em look like commies and say you are right, and then pass the fixed laws tomorrow making you a criminal. people will take that type of thing for about half a second.....
Rockin the Saiga world since 2003




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users