Just waiting for a "can"

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:02 pm

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =349791407

airedaleman · Post by **airedaleman** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:42 pm

Maxim "suppressor?" Hiram would have had a fit...

Eye-Bite! · Post by **Eye-Bite!** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:41 pm

Definatly interesting....err, interested!

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:12 pm

If I were in charge ALL rifles would have threads, for three types of tips:

1) suppressors, for quieter practice and safety on the range.
2) bird-cage 'flash hiders', for far more muzzle-protection than a mere 'crown'.
3) a plain-metal thread-protector, for those who prefer the uncluttered, traditional look.

Stupid politicians who have to pretend to 'solve' every problem, including the ones they create, are responsible for the stupidity of making suppressors politically incorrect, expensive, and unfortunately they have become the exception, rather than the rule.

airedaleman · Post by **airedaleman** » Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:44 pm

AJMD429 wrote:If I were in charge ALL rifles would have threads, for three types of tips:

1) suppressors, for quieter practice and safety on the range.
2) bird-cage 'flash hiders', for far more muzzle-protection than a mere 'crown'.
3) a plain-metal thread-protector, for those who prefer the uncluttered, traditional look.
Stupid politicians who have to pretend to 'solve' every problem, including the ones they create, are responsible for the stupidity of making suppressors politically incorrect, expensive, and unfortunately they have become the exception, rather than the rule.

Agreed.
At this remove, does anyone have any idea of who was responsible for the National Firearms Act of 1934?

JRD · Post by **JRD** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:17 pm

FDR played a roll in it back in 1934.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:50 pm

airedaleman wrote:At this remove, does anyone have any idea of who was responsible for the National Firearms Act of 1934?

If you read the novel, "Unintended Consequences" it actually spells out the behind-the-scenes politics of it quite nicely. Think make-work program for all the recently retired 'revenue agents' no longer out busting stills and arresting alcohol dealers; all the crime created BY alcohol prohibition created an 'obvious' need for government to 'do something', so passing lots of symbolic and stupid gun laws and having those revenue agents enforce them was a good way to appear to 'do something'.

Notice how the crime was created BY alcohol prohibition, and NOT by the alcohol itself, nor those who were otherwise law-abiding citizens who used alcohol. . . . JUST LIKE OUR CURRENT "DRUG" PROHIBITION situation.

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:18 pm

AJMD429 wrote: Stupid politicians

Isn't that redundant?

Just waiting for a "can"

Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"

Re: Just waiting for a "can"