Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TheAirsoftLoki

  • Rank
    ASF Citizen
  • Birthday 01/07/2011

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Range trips are getting rather expensive, so I was wondering if there was an airsoft version of the M&P9 (GBB). Thanks.
  2. The ATF doesn't make a distinction, and until there is jurisprudence to state otherwise, neither should you. Remember the confiscated GBBRs? Did they care that they were airsoft guns, and not able to fire a real round?
  3. No, you can't own a silencer period. The ATF treats all silencers the same: For example, this is an integral suppressor, and will not be sold without a stamp. First off, if they are allowed in your states, it is regulated by the feds. Second, to own a legal silencer, you need to go through the process to buy an NFA item, which involves many background checks, a loooooong wait, and payment of a $200 tax stamp on each item. I wouldn't bother, just be careful not to get caught. Can either runner or a mod edit the OP to make it clear that integral silencers are verboten?
  4. I guess returning after being banned is a bannable offense
  5. If the companies did not produce the exterior design of the rifle, they should pay some form of royalties. However, if the rifle does not have an existing patent, copyright or whatever, it should be fair game (AK47, M16 etc.)
  6. Chances are he will come back with a new IP and user name, so I'm not even going to bother weighing in on the banning.
  7. Hiram Maxim, the inventor of silencers, used the term on his patent. All good info. Just one small addition. Do not think that the ATF will take it easy on you. They WILL railroad you. Even if it is accidental, completely fake, or otherwise a misunderstanding, they will prosecute and make you a felon. They have done it before with malfunctioning rifles that went full auto, and until they are cleansed of corruption, they will do it again. If you can disassemble it, the baffles are considered silencers by themselves. Don't even play around with them unless you are a SOT or have a tax stamp. I'm dead serious. The ATF are not to be messed with without legal counsel. ETA: And permanently won't do you any good if you make them mad. They have modified test conditions to get the expected results before.
  8. Seen it before. This rifle pre-dates the 2nd amendment by 10 years, has up to a 22 round magazine, has about the same power of a .45ACP, and is extremely quite. Yeah, that kind of puts a hole in the "founders couldn't envision high capacity magazines or silencer guns" argument.
  9. This year? Eddystone 1917 and Remington 870. I might buy a Tennessee or Kentucky Longrifle Kit if I can find enough money.
  10. ADD Moment: I enjoy being both a Christian and a libertarian. Makes for interesting conversation with people who are equally religious but want to regulate me based on that.
  11. There are so many standard capacity magazines out there now that a ban would be utterly pointless. You wouldn't be doing anything other than limiting concealed carriers to 10 rounds and letting criminals have however many they want, because dumb laws like this do not solve anything, they just give the government more power, which they either abuse of prove their incompetence with. Your law would handicap those who would not use a magazine to shoot innocent civilians. Also, high capacity is disingenuous. The standard for the M16 was 20 rounds and now is 30 rounds. The standard for a G17 is 17 rounds. IIRC, NYS has never used the magazine ban as an outstanding charge. It is always used in cases where the DA is trying to throw the book at someone. In my area, the police don't really care, some of them even have post-ban mags for their guns. Explain this to me, why should the police have "high capacity" magazines, when they have backup, bullet proof vests, and no legal obligation to stay and fight? As for "no private sales", that didn't stop Jared Laughner, who bought his gun from a licensed dealer (if you will recall, his magazine malfunctioned, probably due to it's capacity vs. what the gun is designed for, it's size allowed for a grandmother to grab it, and h was almost shot by an concealed carrier) It won't have an impact on violent crime, because 90% of violent crime involves no firearm, 94.4% of gun murders are gang related, who get most of their guns from theft, and even when a gun is present, it is not used or threatened to be used 83% of the time 70% of the time, criminals get their guns from off the street sales. However, 71% of the times, those guns were stolen. It didn't stop the columbine shooters, they used a strawman purchase (Who, by the way, used low capacity magazines and an illegal handgun). In the age where one could buy a Tommy gun with a silencer, Drum mag, and all the other goodies at a hardware store, there were no school shootings. What you want is control, because you don't trust people. You do, however, trust the government, which is a far bigger threat to your freedom than your average American, gun owner, or hunter. Just remember, it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs ETA: On the subject of waiting periods, after the one under the brady bill came into effect, Murder and robbery remained at the pre-bill levels, and rape+ aggravated assault began an increase. The difference in homicide rates between states with the waiting period and without it are negligible. The average gun used in a crime is usually stolen, and goes an average 1-12 years after purchase before a crime is committed. Suppressors are barely regulated in some countries, and they have no issue with assassin style killings. It should be a matter of courtesy, the only guns that become Hollywood quiet have terrible ballistics. I would love a suppressor, I hate wearing ear protection, I can't hear the game I'm stalking with ear plugs in, and when I'm hunting dangerous things like boar, I prefer to hear everything that's going on. Plus they are useful for not losing hearing in self defense situations. None of your solutions would come even close to saving a single life.
  12. As a libertarian, I could care less about marriage. It's not something for the government to regulate. I don't care if you marry in your own gender, or marry over 9000 people.
  13. Strat, the point is, the politicians that you are applying the rules to never said anything that could be construed as a death threat without stretching it, whereas when we post examples of clear death threats and violent rhetoric, you refuse to pull your head out of your . I'm going to agree with RD one this one. Troll.
  • Create New...