This is what gun ownership looks like
They look so normal. I’m surprised it’s in Slate.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 3rd, 2014 at 9:04 am
He is the big ass rock in the shoe of the Narrative. South Florida gun clubs put a stutter on the gun control rhetoric of racism.
April 3rd, 2014 at 9:04 am
Wonder if Dan Baumholds has his tax stamp for the stock on the C-96?
April 3rd, 2014 at 9:37 am
Photos once again confirm that EVERYONE has better guns than me. I’m jealous.
April 3rd, 2014 at 1:24 pm
If it’s a real C-96 and an original C-96 stock, no tax stamp needed — just as with Lugers and HiPowers, if the gun and the stock are both bona fide original “stocked pistol” pieces from the original production periods, they are exempted from NFA as Curios & Relics deemed unlikely to be used in criminal activities. (This exemption is NOT automatic — ATF has individually and expressly exempted each of these models.)
This DOES NOT mean you can mill a stock slide into a P-08 or GP35 that didn’t have one, nor can you use a reproduction stock (ATF has gone back and forth on whether repro stocks count — last I checked, repro stocks are verboten), unless you register the pistol as a Short Barrelled Rifle.
But if it was built before WWII that way, and you have an original stock (or at least the metal bits – the wood can be replaced) for that model of pistol, you’re golden with a stocked, Title I pistol.
April 3rd, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Shockingly good finger-off-the-trigger, across the board, too.
April 4th, 2014 at 8:57 am
I don’t know about that first pick. Is the baby some sort of body armor? Either way the kid is toast in a gunfight unless its the cops doing the shooting.
April 7th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
So, Paul, parents who have kids too small to run away as fast as the parents shouldn’t be allowed to protect themselves with a pistol? Or maybe, only the parents NOT designated to carry their infants should be allowed to carry?
Because, you know, most defensive uses of firearms don’t end up involving any shots fired, and even if shots are fired by the defender, the odds are pretty good that the defender won’t get hit by incoming fire. . .
I seriously doubt dad there plans on squaring off against his mugger in the street at high noon for a quickdraw gunfight, a la Hollywood Westerns. . .