How is the burden on me? NFA trusts are currently legal, so of course the burden is on you. Are you really this fucking stupid?Actually, the burden is on you to actually come out and say whether you think that the authors of the NFA meant for NFA trusts to be possible, rather than continuing to hide behind "lawl it's never been used in a crime", which I never even asserted to the contrary.
Again, your shocking lack of knowledge is fucking you up. Full auto is really no more deadly than semi-auto and is more about suppression than killing people. So yeah, even if at some point some NFA guy does go on a killing spree, it won't matter, since he could have legally obtained those weapons without the trust and it isn't as if the weapons are more deadly anyway.Duppin_sl said:When some guy with an NFA trust stockpile flips out and goes on a killing spree, it's going to be absolutely epic, though.
Why you dodging the question, brah? Did the writers of the NFA intend for NFA trusts to be possible, or not?How is the burden on me? NFA trusts are currently legal, so of course the burden is on you. Are you really this fucking stupid?
The assertion was that NFA-obtained weapons had never been used in a crime. I don't need more than one counter-example.Congratulations. You found one guy.
You're right, there's unanimous support in that article for NFA trusts in their current form. Wait, shit, what's this?You should read that article, it points out many times why trusts are useful and why they aren't a problem.
A FREAKIN' GUN STORE OWNER_sl said:Bob Irwin, who owns the Gun Store in Las Vegas, said his store always performed background checks for firearm purchases involving trusts - the store has handled three so far this year - but he was aware that some dealers did not.
The gaps in the law that allow such lapses, he said, are "astronomically stupid."
"That really is a loophole," Mr. Irwin said. "I can certainly see how a felon could wind his way through it and end up with machine guns."
ROFL, yeah like SBRs and suppressors? How often are those used in crimes? Again, pretty much never.Oh, by the way, there are lots more things available via an NFA trust than just full-auto weapons. I've done my homework.
You're right. A guy like that would've chosen to keep his most effective killing tools at home.You didn't prove he used those weapons to commit his killing spree though. Just that he used it to get them.
So by "loophole" you mean that someone could legally get a weapon through a NFA trust and then illegally give to someone else? That isn't a fucking loophole you stupid fuck, it is still illegal.Wait, shit, what's this?
This is a guy who is selling NFA weapons, you stupid fuck. He's not giving away anything, he's choosing to do background checks where he isn't required to by law, and HE thinks that loophole should be closed.So by "loophole" you mean that someone could legally get a weapon through a NFA trust and then illegally give to someone else? That isn't a fucking loophole you stupid fuck, it is still illegal.
But sure, keep claiming that I'M uninformed.ATF Guy_sl said:Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces firearms regulations, said that applications filed with the A.T.F. for transfers of restricted firearms to trusts or corporations have more than doubled in the last four years, to more than 39,000 in 2012 from about 15,000 in 2008. He said the increase was largely attributable to the growth in the number of trusts.
Mr. Campbell confirmed that under current regulations, background checks were not required for the buying of restricted firearms through trusts. The agency, he added, was aware of the loophole and was reviewing changes to close it.
You guys sure do have a fascination with guns as sexual objects.Agreed, get help Duppin. My guess is that you were molested at gun point as a child, you did mention that you were around guns as a kid.