Mega Rad Gun Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Yours Truly 2095 said:
Maybe if you pay inflated in store prices or if you're including optics into that rifle price. There's absolutely no need to pay that much for a handgun unless you're heavily into competition. You can get a sub moa AR (most people aren't sub moa shooters) for much less than $1500. G$ upper on sale and build out a lower. The hype beast guntuber push that you minimum need to spend thousands of dollars for a reliable rifle and handgun is really getting to me. You can get an optics ready CZ P-10C for $370 right now. Glock tradeins for similar. https://palmettostatearmory.com/cz-p-10-optics-ready-compact-4-9mm-15rd-pistol-fde-91577.html
Click to expand...
Those are not "nice" guns in my opinion. They are functional to be sure but they are not finished nicely. there is more to the world than ARs and glocks.
 
Dusty Old Bones said:
Funny coincidence - I was testing the Arisaka a picked up this month. While the gun was fine, the bullets from WW2 were apparently corroded, and some boomer fuck just polished off the verdigris before selling them to the milsurp store.

One of them ruptured and gave me the old spicy forehead, If I didn't have glasses, the small hunk of brass I have lodged in my forehead might have sliced up my eye instead.

I'm leaving it in there, just for the humble brag I AM THE LAST MAN CARRYING TOJO BRASS SHRAPNEL FROM WW2 IN MY HEAD!
Click to expand...
You're not a REAL mil surp fan until youve had early 1900s slave labor ammo throw metal into your face.

Fucking Nips set up ammo bombs still salty over the bombs.

Epic cotton post tho.
 
DoNotFeedTheSneed said:
Thinking of picking up a PTR 91 at some point. Specifically looking at the A3S model, even though it's a bit more expensive than the base GI model. I think it would be cool to get a reproduction wind correction table sticker for the stock and mock it up like a Swedish AK4.

View attachment 7389401View attachment 7389410
Click to expand...
I love my PTR too. Got a cool one with the black powder coat and the surplus german wood furniture. The A3S is the way to go I think, I wish mine came with the paddle mag release and the welded top rail but I can make do.
 
TerminalTryHard said:
The amendment removing silencers from the NFA made it through the house and is in its way to the senate.

If you're a person who believes in calling and emailing congress critters, now would be the time. You can also still tell your senator to re add the SHORT amendment to it as well.
Click to expand...
I read the text and it looks like they reduced the tax to $0. I don't see anything about a repeal. Does that mean it still has to be registered? Am I just not understanding something about this?

Screenshot_20250522_162712.webp
 
Pelican Bones said:
I read the text and it looks like they reduced the tax to $0. I don't see anything about a repeal. Does that mean it still has to be registered? Am I just not understanding something about this?

View attachment 7397912
Click to expand...
Nobody gave a shit about $200, and that's the win we're being peddled?
 
Last edited:
Syous said:
It's hard to tell at first but it seems the following text was amended into HR1 today.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/119th-congress/house-amendment/22
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/119th-congress/house-report/113

(a) effectively removes silencers from the list of defined "firearms" requiring registration under the NFA, while the remainder nullifies the manufacture and transfer tax.
Click to expand...
Should be noted that this bill, if passed as is, does not also remove silencers from the GCA. Which means that while you wouldn't need to do the fingerprints and long approval process from the ATF, you would still need to do the same process as buying any gun within your state. So, form 4473, NICS check, and whatever other things your state may require.

They're still regulated as "firearms" under the GCA. But the Fifth Circuit says they aren't protected by 2A :story:

Either way though, this is still a big win. If we can get the Senate to put the SHORT act back into the bill, this is by far the biggest win for 2A since the AWB expired.
 
Lead Lizard said:
Should be noted that this bill, if passed as is, does not also remove silencers from the GCA. Which means that while you wouldn't need to do the fingerprints and long approval process from the ATF, you would still need to do the same process as buying any gun within your state. So, form 4473, NICS check, and whatever other things your state may require.

They're still regulated as "firearms" under the GCA. But the Fifth Circuit says they aren't protected by 2A :story:

Either way though, this is still a big win. If we can get the Senate to put the SHORT act back into the bill, this is by far the biggest win for 2A since the AWB expired.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Here's Mr. Gunsngear whitepilling about it


Ahh the US Army officially adopted the M7 and M250.....

Enjoy 13lb rifles with 10 fewer rounds per magazine and a LMG with no QCB Joes

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
FPC LEGAL ALERT: The federal government has changed its position in a criminal case where it previously argued that suppressors aren't protected by the Second Amendment because they're accessories and not arms. The government now argues that:

1) "[T]he Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors"
2) "[R]estrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional"
3) The NFA is constitutional because it's "a modest burden" and not a ban
4) The 3-judge panel should rehear the case and correct its analysis, rather than going en banc

 
Yours Truly 2095 said:
FPC LEGAL ALERT: The federal government has changed its position in a criminal case where it previously argued that suppressors aren't protected by the Second Amendment because they're accessories and not arms. The government now argues that:

1) "[T]he Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors"
2) "[R]estrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional"
3) The NFA is constitutional because it's "a modest burden" and not a ban
4) The 3-judge panel should rehear the case and correct its analysis, rather than going en banc

Click to expand...
The NFA is supposedly constitutional because it’s a tax, but go ahead and try to Form 1 a machine gun as an individual.
 
Yours Truly 2095 said:
3) The NFA is constitutional because it's "a modest burden" and not a ban
Click to expand...
This is still the "rejected" means-end testing that's supposed to be done away with by Bruen. From page 6 of their filing onwards it's just disguised means-end testing.
From the conclusion:
"...this Court should grant panel rehearing and hold that (a) the National Firearms Act’s regulations on suppressors burden the right to bear arms but that (b) the Act’s modest burden is consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment."
We have to agree that it violates the right to keep and bear arms, but our reasons for doing it are good, we promise. Those silences are scary and have been used a couple of times in the last century to kill people, so we're allowed to force registration on "nonessential" accessories and a $200 tax. We really need this list of lawful silencer owners! The way they twist themselves in knots hurts the brain.
 
Last edited:
Pretend To Imagine said:
The NFA is supposedly constitutional because it’s a tax, but go ahead and try to Form 1 a machine gun as an individual.
Click to expand...

True, but this is a huge step towards at the very least reopening the machine gun registry at the very least. Every journey begins with a single step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom