RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


LookieNoNookie -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (11/30/2012 7:46:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Recently I put a bid in on a 9k22 Soviet Era Tunguska Anti-Aircraft vehicle.

I received information detailing the following restrictions on the vehicle and all attached systems.

1) The radar unit was removed.
2) The anti aircraft guns were demilled and made nonoperational
3) the rubber road tracks cleats would not be supplied with the vehicle.

What this means is that the only function the vehicle has is as a 75,000 pound off road vehicle.

Now here is the problem, I have a canceled carry permit, own a nice collection of guns, and if I wanted to, I could get the proper licensing to own automatic weapons such as the M2 fifty cal machine gun.

So the question is, why he hell wont the Federal Government and the ATF allow me to buy an operational anti-aircraft tank. I think that this is an example of unreasonable firearms restrictions.


I actually put a bid on an anti grav machine once....but the bid kept going higher and higher....and higher.....and.....




Edwynn -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/1/2012 4:53:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Actually I was trying to make a point. You cannot buy combat ready vehicles in the US, but with the right licenses, you can own anything from a mac-10 to a minigun that shoots 6000 rounds a minute.

The only thing stopping anyone is price.



My, 6,000 RPM is impressive. Almost as high as some race car motors.

Being formerly in the audio world, I automatically recognize this as 100 Hz, or 100 CPS in the old days.

Since we hear power line frequency as an octave above the actual frequency, due to magneto-restriction causing a 'pop' on both sides of the cycle, if one were to fire this gun in Europe, with their 50 Hz line frequency, some audio engineer would say "where in the f*ck is that hum coming from?" Audio engineers hate line frequency hum. I don't care how many "connect shield at source, disconnect at load" or other "ground lift" or other nostrums attempted, I only ever really got rid of hum in the control room or in the PA by voodoo magic.


For the curious, 100 cycles per second can be closely approximated by plucking the 6th string on guitar, third fret, or by the piano key residing at the upper of the two white keys within boundary of the three black keys occurring below the C that is one octave below middle C.

(Equal temperament tuning for that G, per modern pitch reference, is actually 97.9987 CPS, but the human sense of pitch isn't that picky, so anyone with the ear to recognize such a thing at all would call 100 Hz a G and call it a day).






DesideriScuri -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/1/2012 5:38:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
...
[image]local://upfiles/346456/37BC53046CEE4EFFA3D13E71609BAD90.gif[/image]


Calvin and Hobbes rule! It was a sad, sad day when he stopped drawing them,




JstAnotherSub -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/1/2012 5:43:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Recently I put a bid in on a 9k22 Soviet Era Tunguska Anti-Aircraft vehicle.

I received information detailing the following restrictions on the vehicle and all attached systems.

1) The radar unit was removed.
2) The anti aircraft guns were demilled and made nonoperational
3) the rubber road tracks cleats would not be supplied with the vehicle.

What this means is that the only function the vehicle has is as a 75,000 pound off road vehicle.

Now here is the problem, I have a canceled carry permit, own a nice collection of guns, and if I wanted to, I could get the proper licensing to own automatic weapons such as the M2 fifty cal machine gun.

So the question is, why he hell wont the Federal Government and the ATF allow me to buy an operational anti-aircraft tank. I think that this is an example of unreasonable firearms restrictions.

You are in luck. I have a 9k22 Soviet Era Tunguska Anti-Aircraft vehicle, with the radar intact, operational aircraft guns and cleats already installed.

For a mere 5.6 mil, plus 1.25 mil shipping and handling, it can be yours.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/1/2012 5:55:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub
You are in luck. I have a 9k22 Soviet Era Tunguska Anti-Aircraft vehicle, with the radar intact, operational aircraft guns and cleats already installed.
For a mere 5.6 mil, plus 1.25 mil shipping and handling, it can be yours.


Damnit! The S&H always gets you!




PeonForHer -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/1/2012 6:11:50 AM)

I've got to say, JLF: Excellent. [:D]




DomKen -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/1/2012 8:18:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Recently I put a bid in on a 9k22 Soviet Era Tunguska Anti-Aircraft vehicle.

I received information detailing the following restrictions on the vehicle and all attached systems.

1) The radar unit was removed.
2) The anti aircraft guns were demilled and made nonoperational
3) the rubber road tracks cleats would not be supplied with the vehicle.

What this means is that the only function the vehicle has is as a 75,000 pound off road vehicle.

Now here is the problem, I have a canceled carry permit, own a nice collection of guns, and if I wanted to, I could get the proper licensing to own automatic weapons such as the M2 fifty cal machine gun.

So the question is, why he hell wont the Federal Government and the ATF allow me to buy an operational anti-aircraft tank. I think that this is an example of unreasonable firearms restrictions.

You are in luck. I have a 9k22 Soviet Era Tunguska Anti-Aircraft vehicle, with the radar intact, operational aircraft guns and cleats already installed.

For a mere 5.6 mil, plus 1.25 mil shipping and handling, it can be yours.

Is that with or without the 8 anti aircraft missiles?




Zonie63 -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 2:29:14 AM)

You can buy a missile silo if you have the money. It doesn't come with the missile, though.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:10:07 AM)

Actually...

Lots of people own tanks in the US, a few even with functional cannons...quite legally too.

A friend was the chief restorer for Jauque Littlfield, who at the time of his death had a collection of over 240 armoured vehicles, including a scud missile and its support vehicles. The Collection if I recall correctly, he had a Russian T72 and an older M1 abrams.

As a kid, we had an M16 half track, sans quad 50, an amphibius Duck, two M8 armoured cars. A dear friend has a Stuart light tank, etc.





slvemike4u -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:31:28 AM)

This has to be the strangest "gun" thread I have seen in these parts.
You people are fucking weird [:D]
Here we have a guy with a cancelled carry permit who wants to import an anti-aircraft weapon,we have another who has a friend who has a Stuart light tank(thank god it wasn't a heavy tank)....what a fucked up country [8|]




jlf1961 -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:49:39 AM)

I meant concealed carry permit.

And I am not trying to import anything, the vehicles are already here in the states. There is even a company in Houston that has a bunch of "scrap" T72 and T82 Russian tanks that belonged to the Iraqi army.

I am just complaining that I cannot buy one that is not fully operational.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:54:24 AM)

You watch too many movies, mist gun crimes are committed with tiny .22 rifles and or cheap hunting shotguns.

Tanks are just so hard to conceal and outrunning cops a bitch. Oh, and no xrimes as of yet...




slvemike4u -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:56:05 AM)

Oh....well in that case,everything is all better now .
Things ,once again ,make sense.[8|]



p.s. I,and anyone else with half a brain ,knew that you meant concealed [:)]




jlf1961 -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:56:22 AM)

But if I can buy enough of them I can equip the New Army of Texas Independence...




DomKen -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 8:56:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Actually...

Lots of people own tanks in the US, a few even with functional cannons...quite legally too.

A friend was the chief restorer for Jauque Littlfield, who at the time of his death had a collection of over 240 armoured vehicles, including a scud missile and its support vehicles. The Collection if I recall correctly, he had a Russian T72 and an older M1 abrams.

As a kid, we had an M16 half track, sans quad 50, an amphibius Duck, two M8 armoured cars. A dear friend has a Stuart light tank, etc.

Do you know what happened to the DUKW? I know a tour operator who would pay good money for one in good shape.




slvemike4u -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 9:01:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Actually...

Lots of people own tanks in the US, a few even with functional cannons...quite legally too.

A friend was the chief restorer for Jauque Littlfield, who at the time of his death had a collection of over 240 armoured vehicles, including a scud missile and its support vehicles. The Collection if I recall correctly, he had a Russian T72 and an older M1 abrams.

As a kid, we had an M16 half track, sans quad 50, an amphibius Duck, two M8 armoured cars. A dear friend has a Stuart light tank, etc.

Do you know what happened to the DUKW? I know a tour operator who would pay good money for one in good shape.

As opposed to the prospective buyer who is offering "bad" money ?[:D]




erieangel -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 9:26:57 AM)

Only the focus this thread was strange. I think the OP was making a point.

Second amendment purists insist it gives each of us the right to bare arms (except those who a deemed unfit due to felony convictions, mental illness etc.). They never tell us what kind of arms. When the 2nd was written, "arms" consisted of the single-shot variety. Today we have semi-automatic as the "arms" that groups such as NRA would like to protect via the 2nd. But where does it stop? Where does my right to bare arms end according to the 2nd amendment? As written and under current interpretation that the 2nd is a guarantee that the citizenship has the means of overthrowing a repressive government, shouldn't I be allowed to have the same types of weapons as the military? Why am I barred from owning a working tank, a missile launcher and even a nuclear weapon? The citizenship does not have the means to violently overthrow a repressive government when that government has all those weapons and all the citizens have are semiautomatic weapons.




SimplyMichael -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 9:27:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Actually...

Lots of people own tanks in the US, a few even with functional cannons...quite legally too.

A friend was the chief restorer for Jauque Littlfield, who at the time of his death had a collection of over 240 armoured vehicles, including a scud missile and its support vehicles. The Collection if I recall correctly, he had a Russian T72 and an older M1 abrams.

As a kid, we had an M16 half track, sans quad 50, an amphibius Duck, two M8 armoured cars. A dear friend has a Stuart light tank, etc.

Do you know what happened to the DUKW? I know a tour operator who would pay good money for one in good shape.


Uh, I am OLD...that was many years ago. There is one here they use for tours, fun to watch!





SimplyMichael -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 9:38:03 AM)

At the time of the american revolution, military weapons were 50 years AHEAD of the shitty muskets carried by the military.

The second amendments SOLE reason for inclision was to GUARANTEE citezens the right and ability to overthrow the government. Which is now the commonly held belief of constitutional scholars.

And by the idiotic notion of applying it to the 1700...then,"freedom of speech" refers to that. Not radio, not telivision, not the internet, not even a microphone.

And how many,anti gun nitwits have any sort of grasp on the level of gun laws out there? Most dont know jack shit...






SimplyMichael -> RE: Unrealistic ATF and Firearms restrictions in the US (12/2/2012 9:40:24 AM)

Egypt, Syria, Iran, Poland, should I go on or are you all caught up now?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375