So what things that aren’t real are you talking about exactly?
Would that be the 3 million defensive uses of handguns per year?
Would that be the thousands of violent crimnals killed each year by lawful citizens owning and using handguns? (Of note, 3 times more than killed by police each year).
You just have to love the tautology you set up for yourself absent any facts to suggest the truth of it.
[sarcasm on]Yes, of course, it is obvious that it is gun industry making guns popular in the minds of people who see them as a means of protection and they do this with slick advertising campaigns. You know, I can’t turn on the TV without being bombarded by gun manufacturer commercials. Radio, boy, you bet non-stop commercials. Magazines, everthing. You name it, all you see is all the marketing by gun manufacturers.[/sarcasm off]
Reality time. People are worried about violent crime happening to them, and it isn’t gun dealers or manufacturers advertising to them that violent crime is reality. It is reality because it is reality. We see violent crime everyday in the media and some people have decided that they want to arm themselves against that. These aren’t vigalantes seeing themselves on a crusade against evil. They see it as a form of defense. Are some people ill-informed and view their guns as a talisman of protection from evil? Sure. But not because of gun manufacturers marketing efforts. They are for the same reason that there are still morons who won’t wear their seatbelts. Just plain stupidity, ignorance and laziness to actually learn about something.
PVonTark: I would fully support an open carry law. But the reality is that there are far too many hoplophobes who would get all squimish on seeing a gun carried by the next door neighbour. Hell, when people come over to my house and see my gun they instictively take a step back. When they hold it they typically hold it well away from themselves. It is a very natural reaction of the civilized side of modern humans who are not accustomed at all to violence or violent tools. This is whole reason behind the defensive mindset that I talk about so much. It is about getting in touch with that animal side so that when it kicks in and it will under violent attack it isn’t your enemy it is your friend.
This is the reason that people who own guns manage to get themselves killed (especially men who also have this default “make the sucker pay for breaking in here” mode, whereas women have a default “get me the hell out of here” mode). They lack training of the mind. They have a false bravado that their gun will keep them safe. Hey, in the movies the good guy can shoot the gun out of the hand of a person at 50 yards… you mean that doesn’t match reality … too many people find that out too late.
Who doesn’t love tautology? :rolleyes: Although I wonder where I was needlessly repetitive.
The gun-control advocate does not want to take away your hunting rifle and shot-gun, nor would I think you’d debate that such weapons kill people in numbers anywhere near that of hand guns. But the pro-gun lobby ignores this, choosing instead to use rhetoric that, ostensibly, claims gun-control in any measure means that the government is gonna get your hunting rifle too. Of course, you’re a responsible hunter and practice gun safety, ergo, responsible gun owners (excuse me: lawful citizens) will be punished for the actions of the violent criminals.
Let me reiterate… I’ll even use your words:
IT’S THE HANDGUNS! My point was, why inflame the passions of the gun-owners by making part of the threat against them something that isn’t even part of the problem? It ain’t about rifles and shotguns used to kill your deer, elk, moose, mourning dove, whatever. It’s about highly specialized killing machines designed for specific missions/purposes in the hands of anyone who wants them. And if the self-same crazies didn’t have them, would you need one too? I guess you eloquently said it yourself: “reality is reality.” Yet the NRA is gonna try and convince you otherwise: “gun-control is coming after law abiding citizens!” they say. Indeed, Chuckie was up in British Columbia just recently telling the Canadians exactly that. To their credit, most were just as confused about what he said as I was.
As far as marketing is concerned, rest assured that the good ol’ U-S-of-A can market handguns like no place on the planet. Pick up any of the myriad of weapon magazines at your local grocery store and tell me I’m wrong. And why use a boring old shotgun to protect myself when I can use a far more interesting (and redundantly lethal) machine pistol? And no, I wouldn’t use TV or Radio, as you caricatured, to market my weapons, for essentially the same reasons China doesn’t: my customers know where to look.
We can chicken-and-egg this all we want. The fact is that the U.S. consumes highly specialized handguns like nowhere else on earth. You can say this is because the U.S. has more criminals to fight, or because the criminals have more handguns than the lawful citizens. Either way, the constant is the stupid handgun, whether it’s in the hand of the good or the bad.
Then again, maybe I’m just a shivering hoplophobe. I’ve been called worse.
Momo, you’ve posted so many outright fallacies, I hardly know where to start. For the most part I’m going to ignore you’re name-calling and incendiary remarks except to say that they are uncalled for in a civil debate. Tossing out bellicose anti-gunner jargon does little to establish yourself as someone to be respected or taken seriously. On to the meat of my rebuttal.
You’ve claimed the "constitutional argument is a red-herring. I have to vehemently disagree with that. This is the crux of the entire issue. The constitution explicitly states that the government may not infringe upon my rights to own firearms. What’s confusing you is function of the constitution; it exists merely to show your elected officials what the people will allow their government to do. It is not about rights or privileges granted to you by that government.
From your claim that the 2nd amendment no longer reflects reality it appears to me that you wish to repeal it entirely. I beg to differ. The intent of the 2nd amendment, as described in the Federalist Papers, was to give the citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government should it become necessary or desirable. An understandable goal when you consider our country’s genesis just a few short years prior to the establishment of the constitution. As such, the validity of the 2nd amendment can never become outdated.
As to why Americans ‘love guns,’ your term and somewhat inflammatory, maybe you should consider how this country was founded and expanded. The simple fact is that the firearm is part of the American heritage whether you like it or not. I really don’t think you can lay it all at the door of firearm manufacturers any more than you can blame druglords for the American fascination with narcotics. One of the basic tenets of capitalism shows that supply is created to fill demand, not vice versa. You are arguing the point that through clever and voluminous advertising, the manufacturers have essentially created the demand; I’m sorry, the marketplace just does not work that way. By the way, just where is this supposed flood of advertising? I don’t see it.
Let’s just check this statement, item by item, for validity. What is a machine-pistol? A machine-gun or pistol is typically defined as a fully automatic weapon, that is, one that will fire more than one projectile with a single depression of the trigger. These are illegal and have been since the '30’s. Folding stocks on pistols are also illegal. 50-shot clips have been banned. Armor piercing bullets are not available for civilian purchase. So, how did Billy Bob Buckshot just go out and purchase this? The answer is, he didn’t, obviously. This is just another example of belligerent anti-gun rhetoric designed to obfuscate the truth and impart fear. Which, oddly enough is what you have accused gun manufacturers of doing. So, if Billy Bob can just go buy one of these off the shelf at the local sporting goods store, maybe I better have one too.
You have also claimed that rifles and shotguns are not used for killing as often as high-performance handguns are. I’ve got some news for you. High-performance handguns are not used in murders nearly as often as you think they are. The handguns used most frequently for murders are the cheaply designed and shoddily manufactured ones. The Hunting rifles and shotguns are most certainly on the gun control agenda. Just ask the citizens of Australia, or England. The slippery slope is not a fallacy. You should read what Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. has to say about handgun restrictions as the entering wedge.
What lethal products? Guns in and of themselves are not lethal. It takes someone behind the trigger with the will to kill to make a gun lethal. I’m really tired of hearing how dangerous guns are and no blame whatsoever is placed upon a criminal acting upon his own free will. People kill, not guns is the truth, not just a trite aphorism. That’s the reality the gun control advocates refuse to recognize.
You also made this statement, “gun-control is coming after law abiding citizens!” Absolutely true. The anti-gunners are trying to reduce my constitutional rights to access and ownership of legally manufactured and sold products. I have never been convicted or accused of a gun law violation. It follows logically then, that the gun control advocates are coming after law-abiding citizens. There is absolutely no way to truthfully deny this fact. Even if we put that aside, are you naïve enough to believe passing a gun registration or ownership permit law is going to prevent a single crime? The last thing any person intent upon committing a violent crime is going to be concerned with is registration of his weapon. In fact, many criminals actually steal license plates to use on their vehicles during the commission of their crimes. I seriously doubt they are concerned with violation of the motor vehicle code. Preposterous.
So, you’d have law abiding citizens give up their constitutional rights and their weapons. By your own admission you’d rather have all the guns in the possession of felons. That’s absolutely ludicrous. I suggest you are the one who has been brain-washed by the gun-grabbing crowd. It’s not the firearm manufacturers that have convinced legitimate gun owners.
MOMO: I am sorry but you are wrong about gun control activists not wanting “dads hunting rifle”-- HCI has said it’s eventual goal is the elimination of ALL privately owned firearms. ALL :mad:
And those of you who quote scandivnavian crime rates. Well, Switzerland has crime rates just as low, and they have a very strict Gun Law; Every Able-bodied Citizen MUST keep a fully automatic Assault rifle in their home or business. Hell, if you believed the Gun Contol crowd, those things are SOOOO EVIL, that if we even allowed them, the streets would be awash with blood overnite. You know, I just saw a TV show with a shot of Geneva, and I didn’t see the rivers of blood…must be the red gain on my TV, gotta get that fixed…
I really have to give props to UncleBeer on this one… I doubt many other people would have been capable of responding as eloquently and truthfully as him.
Would gun control work? In theory, yes. But realistically, it can’t be pulled off without an immense dedication of resources. Resources that just aren’t available.
A handgun is about power. Whoever has a gun has power, and whoever doesn’t have a gun does not have power. Those who use this power over others are already breaking the law, and another addition to the list of charges isn’t going to give them any pause. Also, gun control takes power away from those who do care about the law.
End result of gun control? The criminals have all the power, and Joe Lawabider is left with a bullet hole in his gut.
However, if everyone had a gun… or, more importantly, if everyone POTENTIALLY had a gun… any criminal who’d want to use a gun would think twice.
I say, abolish all but the minimal aspects of gun control. We’d see a lot more deaths in the first week or so, but the vast majority of those would be fools stupid enough to start something in a crowd.
You know, you’re right. My original post was out of line. If anything, your 2729 posts to my 10 gives you a right to point that out, so I offer up my mea culpa and hope to learn from it. Satire is a double-edged sword, and context if the first casualty when its done without some modicum of tact.
By the same token, I got a headache trying to wrap my head around most of your counter-points, especially how I’d “rather have all the guns in the possession of felons.” I have no idea how you came to assume that, so there’s no point in even reasoning with it.
I’ve lived in England and in Canada, and no matter how you slice it or what books you quote, deaths by handguns in those countries are a fraction per capita of what they are here. Same is true for school-shootings. And no one I know in either nation stays awake nights wondering when the storm troopers are going to bust in and take their guns. But, to your point, firearms are not part of their heritage, either. And I doubt the movement to do so will start any time soon.
I was also wrong about another thing - the 2nd Amendment: I still hold that it represents the truest example of an ahistorical concept, but perception is reality.
At least in this thread it’s clear that I’m the polar opposite of you by whatever scale we choose to measure with, and in realizing that, I also concede that emotions cloud objectivity - that’s true for me as well as you. So on that note, I’ll simply agree to disagree since we’ll get nowhere. Unfortunately, I fear the same for any chance of real progress on this issue any time soon in this country.
JD: I have to agree with you, it is the culture, and NOT the availablity of weapons that causes higher crime rates. that is really what I was pointing out: you can’t point to Sweden, and say they have few guns & a low crime rate, thus, ipso facto the one causes the other. I think that if we went to Sweden and gave EVERYBODY a gun, the crime rate still would be low -but I shudder to think of the suicides.
And that is a big diff between Sweden & the USA: a drunk despondent Swede shoots HIMSELF, we Americans want to take a few down with us. I don’t think gun control will solve this cultural Gap, more will just use their cars, running them into headon traffic.
Momo: First, of all, it is difficult to discern exactly what you are saying because you are ranting. Some calm rational clarity would be appreciated.
“Everybody knows” is not a logical argument.
Okay, so here is your statement of fact. Now you are going to go and prove it.
First, has it occured to you that perhaps people should be allowed to defend themselves against “the evil that is out there”? Has it occured to you that people are deciding that want to defend themselves on their own? You haven’t demonstrated a brainwashing marketing campaign by gun makers to sucker in unsuspecting consumers into buying guns they don’t need. On top of that you haven’t demonstrated the lack of need.
Sure… sigh. Again, I think you need to get in touch with reality a little.
Survey says … BZZZZT. Again, we need some clarity here. Are we taking about handguns or are we talking about submachine guns used by SWAT teams? You seem to be bouncing all over the place.
The handgun was not developed for an highly specialized mission in law enforcement. The H&K SMG was, for example, but never the handgun. The handgun for police and citizen alike performs the role of lethal force as part of the force continuum of self protection. The police have greater flexibility in evaluating a situtation as being one which requires possible lethal force (i.e. they can draw their gun with less provocation), but this hardly is what I would call a highly specialized mission.
SWAT on the other hand needs small arms, with good capacity, good stopping power, but with good mobility. Stealth is also highly desirable. Hence the H&K MP5 with built in silencer. But note that such a gun is illegal to the public. Joe Citizen cannot buy one legally.
Sorry, you failed to show this.
I hope this really doesn’t suprise you that a advocacy group will play to ANY possible supporter to get their support. Do you really think gun control advocates are innocent of this? If anything there are far more guilty because there are plenty of gun control advocates who DO want to come after hunting rifles and shotguns. These same gun control will lie with absurdities like “Gun control could have prevented Columbine”. The NRA position of protecting rifles may be a 3/4s truth, but that is a whole lot better than an outright lie.
You failed to demonatrate the highly-specialized aspect of your claim.
Umm… tautology has nothing to do with repetition. Allow me to demonstrate.
Guns are evil because guns are evil.
[quote]
The gun-control advocate does not want to take away your hunting rifle and shot-gun,
[quote]
I should hope not since I don’t own one.
You will take note that this is the ONLY argument point for by the pro-gun lobby. The reality is that the handgun is the lethal force aspect of legal & ethical self protection. Gun control advocates are trying to take away the ability of the people to properly defend themselves.
Because there are plenty of gun control advocates who DO want to go after rifles and shotguns. It is not a bold faced lie.
Perhaps you can explain why the gun control advocates inflame people’s fears with bold faced lies?
Reality time again. By self-same crazies, I can only assume you mean violent criminals. So, violent criminals DO have them. We DO have laws to keep them out of the hands of violent criminals. So, if we COULD get them out of the hands of violent criminals then of course, the citizenery wouldn’t need them for protection. So, why do we need more gun control? We have all the laws we need to get them out of the hands of criminals.
Because it is. We have sufficient laws to keep guns out of criminal hands. The problem is a lack of enforcement not a lack of laws.
And who do you suppose buys those magazines? People who are already gun owners or collectors. Not exactly the most intelligent marketing in the world if you want to “exploit non-saturated markets”.
Opps… you just stepped on a big landmine there. The shotgun is not an effective self defense weapon at least compared to the semi-automatic pistol (why do you keep bring up machine pistols, do you know much about guns?).
First, of all the shotgun has a slower rate of fire than a pistol which is a big problem. Second, many people couldn’t handle the kick of a shotgun. Third, a shotgun is far easier to disarm. Fourth, shotgun ammunition is much more likely to penetrate walls or windows and hit somebody else (this is especially true for slugs). Fifth, racking shotguns are more prone to jamming and can be difficult to operate under adrenal stress. Sixth, shotguns are two handed weapons which is a tremendous disadvantage should you manage to subdue your assailant. Seventh, you cannot carry a shotgun with you onto the street. Shall I continue?
Why not? Don’t you want to exploit non-saturated markets? Do you think women are clammering to buy gun magazines so they can see the ads for guns BEFORE they have decided if they want to buy a gun? This is your claim. You need to back it up. Of course, it is wrong, people who buy those magazines either already own a gun or the have decided to buy a gun (which you will note means that they did so WITHOUT see the gun makers marketing campaign).
Based on your posts, I would say there is little doubt that you are a hoplophobe. I don’t intend it as an insult, but feel free to take it as one if you wish.
Rest assured there’s a lesson learned for me - I did indeed rant and I guess I should have given more thought to the risk associated with such an approach. Please see my apology a few posts back, as I’ll grant my original post was needlessly inflammatory and full of generalizations. It was intended to spark debate and insofar as that goes, it succeeded.
Secondly, and I’m sure this comes as no surprise, I don’t own a gun or weapon of any sort, so I’m also going to lose any argument dealing with gun semantics, or how one weapon is more accurate (and somehow more legitimate) than another. Obviously, I’m not enamoured with such details.
It’s also obvious that I’m the minority here (and a sucker for punishment), since whatever I say will be attacked with logic that is equally flawed as you believe mine is, ie: the availability of fully automatic weapons and ultra-lethal ammo is, to quote UncleBeer, “just another example of belligerent anti-gun rhetoric designed to obfuscate the truth and impart fear [since these items] are illegal.” If that was a legitimate deterrent, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. About four years ago I lived in the beautiful state of South Dakota, where I attended a gun show (held, oddly enough, in the local High-School since it was the only building in town big enough to house it), going along with a friend who owned many weapons and was looking for some good deals. Indeed, there were many. As stated above I’m no expert, so I can only relate what I was told and what I saw. But at one particular table, supposedly “Chinese factory-new” AK-47s were laid out wrapped in oilcloth, and the vendor happily explained how easily and cheaply they could be modified for full-auto. “Illegal” extended-clips were readily displayed as well, and I was even given a price - of course, I’d get a break on that if I bought the gun too. At other tables, MAC-10s, Uzis, and all manner of exotic weaponry was on “display,” tacitly illegal to sell, but my friend claimed that anything I saw was available to buy should I want it bad enough. I know there will be replies stating I’m making this up, but rest assured I am not.
You yourself state that “… why do we need more gun control? We have all the laws we need to get them out of the hands of criminals.” So how ‘come we’re not? You say “lack of enforcement.” Whatever. All I see is legislation attempting to put more controls on things like I witnessed, stalling on the hill. If legislation, be it the creation or the enforcement of it, is pointless, what can you do?
I’m called naïve when I believe that gun registration or permit law would help prevent getting guns into the hands of the wrong people. Canada has had the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) law on the books for a long time now. I even remember as a young boy getting mine after attending the required gun safety course, and being proud of the achievement. Gun registration has been a more recent development and has not been universally popular, but the main gripe concerns the recurring annual cost associated with it, and not the threat of gun removal. Whatever your opinion, you can’t argue with the statistics (eg: 151 shooting deaths far all of 1998)- in fact, it’s the one item no-one’s challenged me on yet.
Finally (yes, I’m really done here): you’re more than willing, it would seem, to take personal accountability for gun ownership. Yet, at the same time you fight legislation that would ask you to do exactly that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: the gun-lobby can claim gun laws can’t work by making sure all other efforts fail.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.
Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.
Wasn’t the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.
If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.
Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.
Respectfully, then you shouldn’t try arguing it. I don’t argue pro or against drug legalization for one simple reason … I don’t know a damn thing about it. Same thing with creationism vs. evolution. You’ll never convince anybody arguing from ignorance.
Then demonstrate the flaws or leave it be. Either you can counter it with logic and facts or you can’t. If you can’t then you cannot make the claim that it is flawed with any level of credibility.
Supposing for the moment that this is true. Did you call the police? If not, why not?
Again, I wish to reiterate that the problem isn’t the law the problem is the enforcement of the law. Efforts like “Project Exile” are having consider influence on violent crime rates.
I will be patient with you to a degree, momo. But don’t huff and puff about “arguments as flawed as yours” and expect an answer of “Whatever” to be taken with any seriousness. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up.
You do? Consider for a moment the utter illogic of what you are saying.
The gun show you saw had items which were ILLEGAL. This means that there are laws on the books making them illegal.
Laws designed to prevent what you saw aren’t being passed.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. Which is it? Is what you saw illegal or legal but the laws aren’t being passed?
In any event, there are piles of laws dealing with the lawful purchase, registration and ownership of firearms. If they were prosecuted we would be throwing violent criminals to the dogs. Again, efforts like “Project Exile” are doing just this and having great effect.
Again, “Project Exile”. Enforcement is not pointless. It works.
Then prove it. You can’t just state it. Prove it. I have posted some material on the problems with registration on Gadarene’s thread. Feel free to comment with logic, reasoning and facts.
Sure I can. Canada (I am Canadian citizen, by the way) has never had all that many firearms deaths in any event. Also, the homicide rate in Canada has been dropping since 1992. It has jumped around between 2 and 2.6 /100,000 people for 22 years!
Finally (yes, I’m really done here): you’re more than willing, it would seem, to take personal
accountability for gun ownership. Yet, at the same time you fight legislation that would ask you to do
exactly that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: the gun-lobby can claim gun laws can’t work by making sure
all other efforts fail.
__________________
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably.
The lesson is, never try." - Homer Simpson
To UncleBeer and Clitch, just to fill you in, full automatic weapons are legal to own in the U.S… They are a class III weapon, they must have been registered prior to the enactment of the McClure Volker machine gun act. They can only be purchased from a licensed Class III dealer. You will have to undergo a FBI background check it takes about two months, and pay a $300 transfer tax. High capacity magazines are legal to sell they are illegal to manufacture, so the ones out there are legal. A folding stock on a pistol is legal, however it causes the pistol to be reclassified as a short barreled rifle (barrel under 16 inches). Short barreled rifles are Class III weapons and have all the same requirements for ownership as full automatic weapons. Armor piercing rounds are legal to buy, I have several boxes of Hurtenburg 9mm AP rounds. The only bullet that was outlawed was the Teflon coated bullet, considering that it was only manufacture as an experiment and never went into production, the law seems useless.
Now, to the things seen at the gun show, AK-47s, MAC-10s, and Uzis in a semiautomatic version are legal to sell. In a select fire (Full Automatic) version they are legal to sell see paragraph above. The, they are easy to covert myth, that the gun nazis keep throwing around is not true. They can be converted by a skilled gunsmith with a good machine shop. This conversion is a re-manufacturing of the weapon using some of the parts from the initial weapon. Anyone that could do this could make the weapon from scratch. As far as Joe Sixpack converting one, if he did get to fire at full auto more likely than not it will blow up in his face. In one case the government tried to convict a man of owning an illegal machine gun. They did this by loading 7.62 X 39 with very sensitive target primers to get his SKS to slam fire. The case was dropped after the gun blew up during the demonstration.
Now this they won’t come after Dad’s hunting rifle, that’s true. However they will come after the high powered sniper rifle that was formerly known as Dad’s hunting rifle.
Back when I was in college I was fairly liberal (that is young and stupid) gun control wasn’t much of an issue, and I didn’t think much about it. As part of my good works for the community I taught drafting to convicts at a local prison. This is where I formed my opinions on gun control. The convicts were all for gun control since they got their guns illegally anyway. They referred to gun control as the Criminal’s Safety Act, or The Rapist Safe Sex Act. They didn’t fear being shot by the police that is generally a rare thing, you have to give them a reason to shoot you, at least back then, I don’t know about today. However, they feared running into a home owner armed with a firearm, because that person is going to be scared and fill you full of holes the moment they see you. Considering this is how they looked at it having firearms to protect yourself seemed to be a very good idea. I currently have my CCW permit and carry at all times that are legal in this state.
It is interesting to note that feminist talk about empowering women, yet are dead set against women owning or carrying firearms. A woman with a firearm is my idea of empowered. My grandmother at 74 years old defended herself against an intruder using a M-1 Garand. A four foot four inch 74 year old woman with a combat rifle was more than a match for a young punk. Of course it didn’t hurt that she was meaner than a badger with PMS.