New Year New Threat

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archive Thru March 2002: Archive thru January 2002:New Year New Threat
By Etienne on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Dr Ordinare;

There are lots of receivers for Uzi's available, check any issue of Shotgun News. These are new production, and are POST-BAN. If you have a serious interest in this check with the BATF and your state authorities before you start. In order for you to legally assemble a weapon that is banned from import under the assault rifle ban (which is basically an import ban) it will be necessary to replace a fair portion of the parts you buy with parts produced in America. The Feds have produced a list of parts which exist in a firearm, not all of which may be used in an Uzi. The law states that for a banned firearm to be produced domestically not more than ten of the listed parts can be imported. Nothing but a number game.

I hope that this whole discussion has scared you off the idea. If not, PLEASE do your homework first. If you think that the laws regarding Absinthe, home distilling, etc. are potential trouble, just you wait. That kit will come with all the naughty full-auto parts, and I believe that with an Uzi you will have to have someone alter the trigger group to prevent full-auto fire. Have fun!

By Etienne on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 06:31 pm: Edit

The limitation on magazine capacity applies only to new production. If there are pre-ban hi-caps available for a particular weapon it is perfectly legal to own and use them, even if the weapon itself was produced after the ban.

All post-ban high capacity mags are for police or military use only, and will be marked as such. If offered a marked mag, or one with a serial number, STAY AWAY. Removing said marks is also illegal.

BJ, you're quite right, the firearms laws are frequently very vague. This is not accidental.

By _Blackjack on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 06:07 pm: Edit


After re-reading the law, I think you're right. It's all terribly vague, probably because the law doesn't make any sense to start with.

On the other hand, the limitation on magazine capacity has made handgun shopping easier. Now that you can't carry more than 10 rounds n a clip, there's no reason not to get larger calibers...

By Etienne on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 05:52 pm: Edit


To my knowledge there are no pre-ban receivers available for anything, anywhere. Anyone who had such a thing would be a fool not to assemble it into a gun and sell it as a whole. Any receivers which existed before the assault rifle ban and which were not assembled into firearms are, by BATF regulation, NOT pre-ban receivers. A receiver MUST have been incorporated into a completed firearm before the ban went into effect in order to be legally considered a pre-ban item.

Assembling an Uzi from a parts kit is a very chancy thing, especially if you're determined to have the model with the folding stock. Michigan has laws specific to the Uzi, which make the whole project more trouble than it's worth. I have a friend who has put a couple together, and I can't tell how many loopholes he had to jump through to manage it. We get semi-auto versions in the store now and then, and have to weld the folding stock in an open position to make them legal for us to sell. BTW, an Uzi with a 16" barrel looks really stupid.

By _Blackjack on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Incidentally, I think the Branch Davidians had several licensed class-III weapons. As I recall, the pretense of the raid was not that they had their weapons illegally, but that they hadn't paid all of their taxes on them.

By _Blackjack on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Well, one of the reason that people with legal automatic weapons don't tend to use them in crimes is that a) they are thuroughly investigated before they can be licensed, so criminals are less ikely to slip through the cracks and b) the licensing and the guns themselves are so expensive, you'd be an idiot to throw that much money away...

Don, I certainly don't doubt the effectiveness of SMG's, but they are essentially combat weapons. They are a bit much for home/self defense, where you are likely dealing with a small number of poorly- or unarmed attackers at close range. If I empty the clip of a .45 into somebody and they are still coming, they're probably not human...

However, if you get just one weapon, it's a good way to go, since they are so versitile.

Uzi's are banned by name under the 1994 Assault weapons law, but any made before 1994 are exempt. Also, I believe a modified Uzi (with a fixed magazine) is now being marketed to conform with the new regulations. They are stupid regulations, since they don't have any impact on the deadliness of the weapons or their use in crimes, especially since criminals don't usually use long-guns anyway.

Keep in mind that the reason you can sell all the parts EXCEPT the receiver is that the receiver is the part that is serialized and controlled by government regs. The same rules of sale and transfer apply to the receiver that apply to the whole gun. Pre-ban receivers should be availible from licensed dealers, but you can't mail-order them. I have a feeling that ASSEMBLING a pre-ban-style Uzi from parts, even if the parts are pre-ban, is illegal, just because it's too stupid an idea not to be true...

By Wolfgang on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit

One day, he will shoot his ear ! ;-)

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 12:27 pm: Edit


Is it true that you once dissassembled and then reassembled a machine gun whilst riding in a public bus in New Orleans, or is this just a colourful legend?


By Luger on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 11:45 am: Edit

>Luger wil bear me out on this I think, if he has >played with the M-45 Carl Gustaf at any real >distance.

Only out to 300 meters, but it went well so far.

By Don_Walsh on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 08:12 am: Edit

WORMWOOD: the sole case of abuse of a registered Class 3 automatic weapon you are talking about was not a suicide, it as a Class 3 dealer who did his wife.

Your point about one in 250,000 stands.

By the 'logic' of gun laws, the govt should take away all sporting weapons and give each person an machine gun.

Obviously, I am being absurd.

But so are they.

Their agenda is to strip us all of our constitutional right.

We ARE the well regulated militia. Well regulated meaning well trained and competent -- not well CONTROLLED. Control was the last thing the Founders and Framers had on their minds. George III (a crazed Hanoverian who thought a certain tree in Regents Park was Frderick the Great) and his mercenray killer Hessians under British command understood CONTROL.

Of course the USA today is neither controlled not well regulated, but, hey, I don't have to live there, do I?

By Don_Walsh on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 08:03 am: Edit

Nothing personal intended. It is just that armchair commandos underestimate what a trained shot with an open bolt, pistol caliber, crudely sighted SMG can do at 50, 100, 150, 200 m.

Luger wil bear me out on this I think, if he has played with the M-45 Carl Gustaf at any real distance.

A decent shot can cut tent pegs in half with that weapon or a MP-38 or -40 at 50 m. 9mm is quite flat shooting by pistol standards and with the extra ass of th longer SMG barrel is really a carbine cartridge.

A skilled shooter (not by any means a trick shooter who is an order of magnitude better than me) can 'walk' such a weapon onto a human sized target at 200 m so fast that it isn't funny.

Of course it is merely Murphy's Law (and Sturgeon's Law) that most of the people who carry SMGs can't shoot them, but it doesn't mean they are a joke.

By Don_Walsh on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 07:55 am: Edit

Dr O., I left the USA 14 years ago, and spiritually a lot longer ago than that.

My knowledge of US regulations in therefore anachronistic, you had better ask elsewhere.

When I was there a SEMI auto Uzi was a standard civilian Title One weapon, albeit with a 16" barrel.

Nowadays if you can't even own a rather large closed bolt semi auto 9mm shoulder weapon, woe to the Republic.

All because the media fixated on its name, for no particularly good reason.

You know where the name comes from? It cocmes from the designer Col.Uziel Gal of the IDF. Justin will tell you Uziel is an Angelic name, and Gal is merely short for Galilee or Galili. 'Uzi' Gal was/is a friend of mine, and a very nice man, and his brainchild the 9mm Uzi SMG was derived from various Czech SMG prototypes. He is a Holocaust (konzentrationschlager) survivor of Cz origin.

People these days take it to mean any SMG, or even any automatic weapon. Not so.

The Uzi SMG achieved some notoriety in the US because of its use by the Secret Service Exec Protection boyos, who likes to trim a few inches off the original barrel length.

Later the HK MP5 SMG came into vogue, for bo good reason, and eclipsed the Uzi in law enforcement circles, although the Uzi is in the opinion of experts, not just me, easier to train people on nand more accurate. Don't listen to armchair commando gun writers who will bore you about closed bolt vs open bolt. I corroborate my 30 years experience with that of Secret Service instructors who taught people over the course on BOTH weapons and who still favor the Uzi.

Anyone want to argue this, kindly don't quote to me from what you read in GUNS & AMMO, as I will merely insert long finger down throat and barf all over your views. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.

How far d'ya reckon a SMG is good for?

A shotgun is good for 25-50 m max unless you are talking a high tech military shotgun with tungsten pellets that you don't have.

A good SMG in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot it is deadly at 200 meters and that is 220 yards and any time you want to put it to the test stand out there at 200 meters and let me shoot at you with even a MAC 10 -- and I am half blind. You will die.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 05:11 am: Edit

"First, a guy sold me a set of parts off of an unregistered MG-42, then trashed the receiver. I then had everything but a barrel, a bolt, and a receiver."

Don, we need your expertise here. There is a company (Sportsman Guide) who will sell you an Uzi (9mm) semi-auto, in parts, including MOST of the receiver assembly for $199.00.

Is there any way to buy an Uzi receiver?

By Wormwood on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 04:59 am: Edit

If you don't count one suicide in the 1970's (I don't consider that a real crime) nobody has ever used a legally registered machinegun in a crime in the US since they started registering them in the 1930's.

Also, there are about 250,000 registered machineguns in the USA. That in my opinion makes machinegun owners just about the most law abiding group of people in this country.

"Arms don't encourage violence, penises do! "
Remember: If penises were outlawed only outlaws would have penises.

By Etienne on Sunday, January 06, 2002 - 04:23 pm: Edit


What's your definition of a "legitimate use"? Most states do allow the possesion of automatic weapons, though the Federal licensing is rather strict. The guys that have these things own and shoot them simply for the sheer fun of it. There are a number of meets around the country, and folks go just to burn up LARGE quantities of ammunition and have a good time.

Last time I saw a transferable MG-42 offered for sale I think it was in the twenty-thousand dollar range, so these are not for the average guy. Besides, if you get to one of the really large meets, like Knob Creek, you'll see stuff that makes that old German buzzsaw look like a pop gun. Remember that I'm talking about people who own these guns absolutely legally, not some gangster who bought his on the underground market.

By Timk on Sunday, January 06, 2002 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Not knowing too much about American Gun Laws, is it still legal to own machine guns, i cant really think of a legitimate use for an MG-42, unless you were invaded!

By _Blackjack on Sunday, January 06, 2002 - 02:59 pm: Edit


Arms do not necessarily deter violence, nor do they necessarily encourage it.

Arms don't encourage violence, penises do!

Or maybe mouths...

Gun good!
Penis bad!

By Don_Walsh on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 09:53 pm: Edit

That MG-42 was one of the first class-3 weapons I restored.

First, a guy sold me a set of parts off of an unregistered MG-42, then trashed the receiver. I then had everything but a barrel, a bolt, and a receiver.

Next, I found a stripped receiver in hands of a dealer in CA, and bought it.

Finally, I scrounged a barrel and bolt, some link belts, and some original 7.92x57 sS ('heavy ball') in boxes marked Nur fur MG ('Only for MG') -- they would have done bad things to a semiauto KAR-43...linked them up, took it out to my favorite spot in the country and sure enough, it worked like a champ.

Had to carefully clean it, as the old ammo was corrosive as hell. (Chlorate in the priming mixture meant chloride in the bore, leading to rusting if not scrubbed out with warm soapy water. Just oiling, or swabbing with bore cleaner, is ineffective against antiquated primer residues.)

That was more than 30 years after the war (WWII). Good ammunition!

By Perruche_Verte on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Yeah, believe it or not, I really wasn't trying to open a gun control discussion. If everyone wore straightjackets, then we wouldn't be able to slit our own wrists either.

My observation really was, you don't generally see one guy with an automatic weapon walking down the street by himself. You see several guys, usually in a vehicle. If they're on foot, they're watching each other's back and checking out lines of sight.

I'm sure one person, openly armed, deters garden variety muggers, who will look for a drunk or an old lady instead. However, such a person presents an attractive target to anyone with guts and nothing to lose. If they win, they get a free automatic weapon, plus whatever's in his pockets.

If anyone in the ISI has the cojones (and the consensus) to knock off Musharraf and declare jihad for Kashmir, they get an air force and tactical nukes.

There are no absolutes. Arms do not necessarily deter violence, nor do they necessarily encourage it.

By Etienne on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 05:39 pm: Edit

A shotgun for home defense, something smaller and lighter for the street. Full auto fire is a waste for most events.

Damn Don, an MG-42? My favorite.

By Don_Walsh on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit

The MG-42 was in a box. At various other times I had various other items in briefcases etc., but I did not, ever, walk down any street in NOLA openly brandishing an automatic weapon.

As it was, with the old German buzzsaw, I DID get stopped by the local constabulary, who were rather annoyed that they were obliged to let me continue to my office on Baronne Street with the weapon. Anyway that was about 24 years ago, what d'ya want? It's a different world now.

I once had to deliver a silly ass Bushmaster 5.56mm 'arm gum' to a cop who ran the property room in the basement of the NOPD headquarters. The weapon was semiauto, and unloaded, and in plain sight. I got in the elevator and went down to the basement. While I was chatting with the cop who had ordered the thing, and he was filling out the ATF Form 4473, all hell was breaking loose upstairs because some stupid git interpreted my walking in with the thing as an assault on the PD. Eventually some detective with a shotgun came downstairs and told us, "There's a guy in the building with a machine gun!" Then he looked at the gun on the table, at me, and at the cop filling out the form, and said "Oh shit." amd went and called off the alarm.

Nothing further was ever said.

By Wolfgang on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 09:55 am: Edit

Maybe that's because in those contry, murdering your adulterous wife does not count as a crime for their statistics...

wolf - half joking

By Wormwood on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 09:41 am: Edit

Blackjack, Where in the hell do you live that ammo cost for your personal defence weapon is even a factor. "Every night I have to mow down another half a dozen intruders, this ammo is getting too expensive." A well placed 3 shot burst costs just as much a shotgun blast, I don't see the savings. Where are you going to conceal a shotgun?, no just forget I asked that.

Don, the night you walked the streets of New Orleans with the MG-42 tucked under your arm on the way to that bar, did anyone mug or harrass you? I didn't think so, anyone else on this forum ever walk down the street of a US city with a machinegun?

In Isreal and Afganistan people can walk down the streets with a machine gun, and both countrys have lower murder rates than the USA. The USA is 5th in the world in guns per capita that are owned by civillians, and the 4 countrys ahead of us with more guns per capitia, have lower crime and murder rates too.

By _Blackjack on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 05:18 am: Edit

And machine guns are inefficient as weapons for personal defense, if for no other reason than ammo costs. A pump shotgun is more than sufficient for muggers...

By _Blackjack on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 05:16 am: Edit

Er, you missed my point. Maybe I should have called it the less INSANE than Stalin Principle. Sure, he was mad enough to kill his enemies en masse, but not if it meant wiping himself and everything he controlled out in the process.

By Artemis on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 03:03 am: Edit

"So why don't people walk down the street carrying machine guns?"

In many parts of the world, they do. And the last thing they're worried about is muggers. In the U.S. they don't because they've been cowed by generations of politicians explaining to them that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, and that the police will "protect" them.

"Are you sure?"

I propose an experiment. Give me an UZI, a street, and the biggest, baddest mugger you can find, and see what happens. Go ahead. Make my day.

By Perruche_Verte on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 11:49 pm: Edit

"..the guy who walks down the street with a machine gun will always be the last person to get mugged."

Are you sure?

So why don't people walk down the street carrying machine guns?

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Stalin was never in a position to actually use nukes, without inviting the immediate and total destruction of his empire. And he knew it. The rest was bluster.

By Wormwood on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Blackjack Stalin argument:
*The Less-Evil-Than-Stalin Rule states that, if Stalin, who was willing to murder millions of his own people for his political advantage, was unwilling to use nuclear weapons, then any world leader less evil than Stalin will be at least that unwilling.

This is of course a load of fertilizer. Stalin was evil, and would have killed us all, and taken over the world if he could have done so. Unlike the millions of unarmed Ukrainians or the prisoners he executed we would have fought back. We are here for the same reason the guy who walks down the street with a machine gun will always be the last person to get mugged.

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

The Pakis have about 100 'special' warheads and while these are all smallish and tactical, it's a smallish and tactical situation. I have not seen the (open) estimates on India, but such are available and I'd be surprised if they aren't comparable.

Pakistan has the worse problem because their military targets and population centers are much closer to Indian territory than India's are to theirs. And of course Pakistan has a lot less population. Therefore, the calculus of nuclear war does not work in Pakistan's favor, at all. Both sides have missiles that can do the job, both sides have serious air forces capable of delivering 'special' warheads, and both sides probably have artillery capable of delivering tactical nukes, although I do not know if they have packaged warheads for such delivery -- but they could have.

I do not believe that either side desires a nuclear exchange; so this is probably one of their recurrent exercises in mutual saber rattling. They used to do this much more regularly.

On the bright side, if India takes out Pakistan, the US stands to save that billion dollars that Bush promised them. On the down side, I hope the prevailing winds are not blowing toward Thailand, as we only have Bangladesh and Burma in between.

Blackjack, I don't think India has 'boomers' (SSBN submarines) in our sense but they certainly have subs and I doubt it would be hard to outfit these for launching intermediate range missiles.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 01:15 pm: Edit


India probably may not be able to send missiles against the West but nuclear weapons can make a mess of troop deployments. India is not a backward medieval nation with no weapons or infrastructure like Afghanistan was, it's also enormous. India's actions have potentially very serious consequences for world peace.

As for Pakistan's crack-down on terrorists it's only the very real threat of war with it's much larger neighbour that caused General Musharraf to make a few arrests. He has no intention of really cracking down, on the contrary he no doubt hopes that his alliance with the USA against the Taliban will work to his benefit in Kashmir. He's got no more intention of stopping his support for anti-Indian groups that the Taliban had for ending their support for Al-Qaeda. As far as India is concerned the only way they can end his support for these groups is if they take military action against Pakistan. The same logic that the West followed against the Taliban, and it seemed to have worked for the USA.

Neither India or Pakistan are free from guilt over there. They've all committed atrocities agianst each other and aginst their own. Ask a Sikh how his people have been treated? Ask him why he carries a Kirpan (the reason he'll give you is not the symbolic reason given in western books explaining his religion which tend to gloss over the Sikh's historical treatment by Muslims). The Sikhs have been fucked over by everyone over there (including Britain who may as well spat in their faces to thank them for their loyalty when she left India).

'War against Terrorism' can't be viewed as the sole right of the West, others have terrorist enemies and if Pakistan are backing anti-Indian terrorists then who can blame India for doing what it believes it has to do to end terrorism against India. If a nation sponsors terrorism against another nation then is that not the same as declaring war? If so then is Pakistan not already waging war against India?


By Perruche_Verte on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit

This site lays out a Kashmiri Muslim POV. Let's just say that the Indian Army's record in Kashmir isn't spotless.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 09:21 am: Edit

Keep in mind that, while India has nukes, it only has a few, and as far as I know, it does not have ICBM's, nuclear subs or long-range bombers. They would not challenge us on that level.

As to whether the US will support Pakistan, I suspect any support will be fully conditional on Pakistan's continued crack-down on terrorist groups, tho even then I doubt we are going to take sides. Neither Pakistan nor India is innocent of supporting terror in Kasmir. Let's be frank. If we are really gearing up to end terrorism as an acceptable means of conflict, BOTH nations have a lot of work to do.

How 'bout those whacky Argentinians...?

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 08:21 am: Edit

I don't go along with the Less-Evil-Than-Stalin rule. If this was the case then why did the West amass huge amounts of nuclear weapons if there was never a danger that Kruschev and Breshnev (both considered to be less 'evil' than Stalin) would use them. I think that whether or not nuclear weapons are used depends not on the morality of those that control them but on whether or not those that control them believe it to be in their interests to use them or not. A lot depends on the capability of your opponent and whether or not you think you can win by using them.

I wouldn't underestimate the potential seriousness of the rapidly escalating conflict between India and Pakistan. These are 2 countries with a considerable array of nuclear weapons and the real hatred between these two nations is serious (thanks in part to the botched and irresponsible partitioning of India by the British, not forgetting of course the legacy of the Moghuls).

Will the West back Pakistan in it's support of terrorist groups? Will the West tell India that it will just have to put up with terrorist attacks on it's cities being backed by Pakistan because Pakistan is a friend of the West (and therefore it follows the terrorists Pakistan backs are friends of the West too). Would India take this lying down or will it say "Just try and stop us, we've got Nukes as well!"? What would happen then? A war against India? A war against a huge nation which is armed with Nukes? A little bit different than the war against Afghanistan. It probably wouldn't come to this but the possibility is not that remote (a lot less remote than the chances of the Twin Towers being taken out by Jumbo Jets).

During the Cold War it was easy, a conflict would occur somewhere in the world, the West (or Russia) would back one side and Russia (or the West) would back the other. No need to think about which side to back because we were engaging in a moral 'war against the spread of Communism' or a 'war against Imperialist Capitalism'. No need to think about right or wrong because naturally our enemy always backs the bad guys. But now things are very different.

In the ongoing 'War against Terrorism' will the West back Pakistan's state supported terrorism against India because Pakistan is now our friend? Does the West say that the only terrorists against whom any nation can wage a war against are terrorists who attack the West? I hope not.

I do think we are now starting to see a whole new can of worms being opened as nations who think they are powerful enough decide to start their own 'wars against terrorism' and as always what one person genuinely believes to be a 'terrorist' another person genuinely believes to be a 'freedom fighter'.


By _Blackjack on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 06:57 am: Edit

Well, I do't think there is too much danger of a nuclear exchange (under the Less-Evil-Than-Stalin Rule*), but it looks like war of some sort is probably likely, which will put us in an interesting position. I have little doubt that Pakistan's cooperation in our actions in Afghanistan was done with the expectation that we would support them, to some extent, in their conflict with India.

*The Less-Evil-Than-Stalin Rule states that, if Stalin, who was willing to murder millions of his own people for his political advantage, was unwilling to use nuclear weapons, then any world leader less evil than Stalin will be at least that unwilling.

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 04:48 am: Edit

With the New Year do we now have a potentially more dangerous threat to world peace than the Bin Laden affair? India and Pakistan could well be on the way to engaging in nuclear war. Is India justified in threatening their own 'war on terrorism' against Pakistan which has indeed been harbouring and supporting armed anti-Indian groups that operate within India's current borders? Are these groups terrorist criminals or patriots fighting to liberate Kashmir from Indian occupation? Will we now see other nations starting what they see as their own justified 'wars on terrorism'? Are we in any position to tell them not to do so?


Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation