4 ms·

gun manufacturers ... automatic weapon It's illegal in America for private citizens to own automatic weapons manufactured after [some date - 1984?]. Since gun

gun manufacturers ... automatic weapon It's illegal in America for private citizens to own automatic weapons manufactured after [some date - 1984?]. Since gun manufacturers thus can't sell them such weapons, they have no interest in making people want them.

alacombe 7y ago
This is blatantly false. Private transfer of fully automatic weapon is fully legal, provided you live in the right state and register it with the ATF (and pay a $200 tax stamp). The prohibition target the manufacture of such weapon for civilian market past 1984. As such, there is naturally a very high demand for a very low offer, and prices are astronomical, IIRC about $20k for a pre-1984 M-16 receiver. If you have the money to buy a such receiver and your state law do not prohibit you from owning the weapon, go ahead, fill the ATF paperwork, wait 6 months, and enjoy your full-auto M-16. With more paperwork, you can even shot it as a full-auto suppressed SBR. 100% legal.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Did the GP edit their post? Because your post does not conflict with theirs.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
moate 7y ago
I mean, why not? Wouldn't it be reasonable to stoke a desire for that in order and use the resulting frustration as a way to continue to keep a segment of their consumers frustrated with government overreach and limitation on 2A? There's plenty of gun mags that talk about all the high powered tech that the military has access to. If there was no civilian interest in that stuff, it wouldn't be published. You want motivated consumers screaming for your products, and large segment of keeping the 2A in place is reminding consumers that "if you don't have access to guns, bad people will do bad things that could have been prevented".
snapetom 7y ago
1986, and not technically true, but you're close. 1) You need a special stamp from the Feds, which puts you on a list. 2) Some states still outlaw them. 3) Because the law effectively froze the supply of ownable automatics, they're incredibly expensive collector's items, making them largely unaffordable for the average civilian. Further, because of #1, the typical paranoid gun hoarder won't get one.
anigbrowl 7y ago
The GP probably meant semi-automatic, which firearms are ubiquitous. It might have been better to offer that correction than a derailing argument which was itself somewhat inaccurate.
- rpmisms 7y ago
  I don't think it's wrong to call out a common fear-mongering tactic.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  That's mostly intentional. I think it's fair that someone demonstrating ignorance of such a fundamental concept as the difference between auto and semi-auto firearms should have their thoughts on firearms discounted to at least some degree.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Well, seeing that I never said anything about banning them and just compared the “scare tactics”.....
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    There are better ways to be a gun nerd than jumping all over someone who may have just omitted a word. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      No, they didn't just omit the word. They actually don't know the difference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348730 This is not someone who is informed about the topic.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago

alacombe 7y ago

This is blatantly false. Private transfer of fully automatic weapon is fully legal, provided you live in the right state and register it with the ATF (and pay a $200 tax stamp). The prohibition target the manufacture of such weapon for civilian market past 1984. As such, there is naturally a very high demand for a very low offer, and prices are astronomical, IIRC about $20k for a pre-1984 M-16 receiver. If you have the money to buy a such receiver and your state law do not prohibit you from owning the weapon, go ahead, fill the ATF paperwork, wait 6 months, and enjoy your full-auto M-16. With more paperwork, you can even shot it as a full-auto suppressed SBR. 100% legal.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Did the GP edit their post? Because your post does not conflict with theirs.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

moate 7y ago

I mean, why not? Wouldn't it be reasonable to stoke a desire for that in order and use the resulting frustration as a way to continue to keep a segment of their consumers frustrated with government overreach and limitation on 2A? There's plenty of gun mags that talk about all the high powered tech that the military has access to. If there was no civilian interest in that stuff, it wouldn't be published. You want motivated consumers screaming for your products, and large segment of keeping the 2A in place is reminding consumers that "if you don't have access to guns, bad people will do bad things that could have been prevented".

snapetom 7y ago

1986, and not technically true, but you're close. 1) You need a special stamp from the Feds, which puts you on a list. 2) Some states still outlaw them. 3) Because the law effectively froze the supply of ownable automatics, they're incredibly expensive collector's items, making them largely unaffordable for the average civilian. Further, because of #1, the typical paranoid gun hoarder won't get one.

anigbrowl 7y ago

The GP probably meant semi-automatic, which firearms are ubiquitous. It might have been better to offer that correction than a derailing argument which was itself somewhat inaccurate.

rpmisms 7y ago
I don't think it's wrong to call out a common fear-mongering tactic.
CWuestefeld 7y ago
That's mostly intentional. I think it's fair that someone demonstrating ignorance of such a fundamental concept as the difference between auto and semi-auto firearms should have their thoughts on firearms discounted to at least some degree.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Well, seeing that I never said anything about banning them and just compared the “scare tactics”.....
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  There are better ways to be a gun nerd than jumping all over someone who may have just omitted a word. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    No, they didn't just omit the word. They actually don't know the difference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348242 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21348730 This is not someone who is informed about the topic.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago