Chrome-plated AK-47 and a two-year federal prison sentence

[Dench]

+1

hey! another person that supports gun control.

 

[In God We Trust]

The only reason this is a story is because some guns were involved. Take out the guns an lets look at this from another angle. GI Joe goes to war and violates the UCMJ by bringing home (xxx) his wife rats him out for it and he gets arrested. If you take the guns out of it, it is less likely to upset the NES "I should be able to own a nuke if I want" crowd. He smuggled something home. Leave it at that. Its the smuggling, not the guns.

 

[Broc]

Perhaps you missed the part about how much danger the community was in.

He was such a danger that:

She also granted him a two-month delay in surrendering to begin serving his sentence so that he could put his affairs in order.

Where is THAT GUY? --- maybe he can start a blog about how evil this man is and how many children will be able to live because he is off the streets.

 

[pernox]

I read this whole thread, and didn't get that impression at all. I along with everybody in this thread thinks that these laws should not exist, but that does not make any justification for knowingly breaking them. It goes back to that now famous quote on here: PSGWSP. I happen to own a car capable of going nearly 200mph, or covering a quarter mile in 10 seconds from a dead stop, but if I were to do that 200mph run on the MA pike and nobody got hurt would it still be a crime if I was caught? Of course it would be. Is it stupid that it is illegal from my perspective? You bet! See what I'm getting at? We are all gun owners/lovers here so of course any law that restricts what we want to do is wrong/stupid from our perspective but that doesn't mean we are free to disregard them unless we are willing to live with the consequences of doing so. This guy regardless of the DD, or anything else he did in the past that has no relevance to this crime still made the choice to do this crime, knowing full well what the risk was, so now he has to do the time whether "we" feel that particular law is just, or not.

Before anyone calls out my hypothetical high speed example for potentially endangering other drivers, let's assume that it is in the middle of the night with no other cars in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

So nobody gets hurt, the only potential danger is to yourself, and this should be illegal? What ever happened to not punishing people until they.. y'know.. do something that causes harm to someone? If your hypothetical case went to trial, and you were a juror, would you convict? I sure as hell wouldn't.

So he should get a free pass because he was a vet?

No, he should get a free pass because the law he broke is unconstitutional, therefore his duty as a patriot is to ignore it.

+1

BS. You actually support NFA? If so, it's you people that give legitimate citizens a bad name.

The only reason this is a story is because some guns were involved. Take out the guns an lets look at this from another angle. GI Joe goes to war and violates the UCMJ by bringing home (xxx) his wife rats him out for it and he gets arrested. If you take the guns out of it, it is less likely to upset the NES "I should be able to own a nuke if I want" crowd. He smuggled something home. Leave it at that. Its the smuggling, not the guns.

It's most definitely the guns. Did you read the article? There's veritable panic in the streets over a freakin' gun, dude.

“The most important thing is the deterrent effect,” Merrill said. “These are very dangerous weapons. No matter why or how you possess them, having them puts the community at risk.”

Want to court-martial him or whatever for violating military policy? Fine. I don't agree with it, but it's the .mil and they make their own rules, which, unless I'm mistaken, everyone is informed of when they get into it. This is not about that, it's about owning a gun. That's what he was tried for, and what he was convicted for; possession. This is a pack of brown-shirts crapping all over the basic human right to own your own possessions without permission from your overlords. Period.

 

[Busa]

hey! another person that supports gun control.

Law is law as much as I dont agree with it I also dont agree anyone being able to pick and choose which laws they think they should follow. I also think that gun owners supporting other gun owners who knowingly break the law only makes us all look bad.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

He knew what he was doing was wrong.

"Prohibited" would be more accurate than "wrong".

 

[Broc]

This thread is almost as gay as the iPhone threads.

 

[Dench]

Law is law as much as I dont agree with it I also dont agree anyone being able to pick and choose which laws they think they should follow. I also think that gun owners supporting other gun owners who knowingly break the law only makes us all look bad.

sounds like FUDD talk to me.

 

[Martlet]

This thread is almost as gay as the iPhone threads.

Full of hypocrite extremists.

 

[OfficerObie59]

These chrome AK's were not too uncommon over there. I remember running across a guy who had one that was totally plated in 24k gold.

He was obviously a great friend too. $500 for a REAL MP5 or FAL?!

Yeah, such a good friend his carelessness allowed a scorned lover to put the friend at risk of federal time.

Yes, we get it, gun owners are to blame for scaring everyone. If only we didn't insist on owning these big scary things then they wouldn't need to try so hard to ban them.

It is frustrating to me since I bend over backwards to comply with a literal ream of laws that some people, you know like Senator Kerry (cough - AK47 bringback), just completely ignore the law.

That said, the law is ridiculous and antis, media and appeasement fudds are the actual problem, not people who had near or less than zero likelyhood of hurting anyone with these firearms (nor were they convicted of harming anyone).

Yeah, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him, but he isn't "feeding" anything. He is the willing victim of ridiculous laws that he knew darn well he was breaking, but they are still ridiculous laws. Society will not be made safer by his incarceration.

+1

 

[william_munny]

I read this whole thread, and didn't get that impression at all. I along with everybody in this thread thinks that these laws should not exist, but that does not make any justification for knowingly breaking them. It goes back to that now famous quote on here: PSGWSP. I happen to own a car capable of going nearly 200mph, or covering a quarter mile in 10 seconds from a dead stop, but if I were to do that 200mph run on the MA pike and nobody got hurt would it still be a crime if I was caught? Of course it would be. Is it stupid that it is illegal from my perspective? You bet! See what I'm getting at? We are all gun owners/lovers here so of course any law that restricts what we want to do is wrong/stupid from our perspective but that doesn't mean we are free to disregard them unless we are willing to live with the consequences of doing so. This guy regardless of the DD, or anything else he did in the past that has no relevance to this crime still made the choice to do this crime, knowing full well what the risk was, so now he has to do the time whether "we" feel that particular law is just, or not.

Before anyone calls out my hypothetical high speed example for potentially endangering other drivers, let's assume that it is in the middle of the night with no other cars in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

I'm not advocating breaking any laws. What I take issue with here is the condoning of charges for crimes stemming from laws that were created for infringing our rights. PSGWSP when a guy crashes his car while racing at 200mph on the highway at night, not when a guy gets arrested for not hurting or endangering anybody. It shouldn't be a stupid game, and there shouldn't be a stupid prize. Think about it.

 

[Martlet]

I'm not advocating breaking any laws. What I take issue with here is the condoning of charges for crimes stemming from laws that were created for infringing our rights. PSGWSP when a guy crashes his car while racing at 200mph on the highway at night, not when a guy gets arrested for not hurting or endangering anybody. It shouldn't be a stupid game, and there shouldn't be a stupid prize. Think about it.

Whether it SHOULD be a stupid game is a different argument than whether it IS a stupid game.

 

[Terminator03]

I'm not advocating breaking any laws. What I take issue with here is the condoning of charges for crimes stemming from laws that were created for infringing our rights. PSGWSP when a guy crashes his car while racing at 200mph on the highway at night, not when a guy gets arrested for not hurting or endangering anybody. It shouldn't be a stupid game, and there shouldn't be a stupid prize. Think about it.

My example was not to illustrate the "prize" aspect. The hypothetical racing example was to show a comparison of another "crime" that is victimless (assuming that the road was clear and the driver didn't hurt himself), but IS still a crime by the existing laws, so in my example it is a choice to break laws, and when we do, we assume the risk that goes along with that. That was all I was saying. The guy knowingly broke a law that he knew damn well would buy him federal time if caught. This is not to say that I agree with that law (or the speed related one for that matter), but they exist, as do our personal choices of whether or not to abide by them.

It definitely cracks me up how many on here feel that we should be able to henpick which laws are ok to break if they don't fit their particular agenda. Then when someone dares to say that someone broke the law and got what they deserved, the person is accused of "outing themselves"! WTF is that?

 

[Boghog1]

Law is law as much as I dont agree with it I also dont agree anyone being able to pick and choose which laws they think they should follow. I also think that gun owners supporting other gun owners who knowingly break the law only makes us all look bad.

Well since each person breaks about 3 felonies a day please go turn yourself in. the law is the law

 

[mikem317]

He was protecting our freedoms... oh, wait.

 

[Martlet]

He was protecting our freedoms... oh, wait.

Right up until he was dishonorably discharged.

 

[BrianK]

x

 

[mikem317]

Right up until he was dishonorably discharged.

Never mind.

 

[flintoid]

Full of hypocrite extremists.

moderates don't change anything, IMO. In order to create results in legistlation, especially when you are fighting against the current, I personally think it is a "take your stand" rather than "take your social position." Because one raises eye brows or stimulates thought (depending on the the approach), and the other lays down and gets ignored.

Whether it SHOULD be a stupid game is a different argument than whether it IS a stupid game.

Very true. Except that, in relation to my first point, people dog piling on the guy because of media fed nuggets of "how terrible he is" only hurts us, because it encourages such behavior- the behavior of feeding on media spin and hype and buying into the story that you are told. I get it- he could be a piece of shit. He probably was. But as a 2A supporter, I am not going to barf it back up even if it's obvious, because all it does is provide written proof of compliance... on media- the internet. Do you get this? Does anyone else? Is my outrage understandable or am I just pissing into the wind here on Fuddy Duddy NES?

Right up until he was dishonorably discharged.

Yeah, you guys hate this guy because of what the media told you. Did he hurt anyone? Was he a "threat" like the media hyped him to be? Do you and ScottS believe everything you read on the internet? Because I question your similar train of thought makes me obviously deranged because it's inconvenient?

ScottS was telling me that he thought I was unsuitable for my 2nd Amendment right because I questioned his judgement. That's very convenient, for him. Gun control, for him... removes the rights of those around him that he doesn't want to be armed. Whether they harm him or not. But his lack of testicular fortitude gives him the desire to remove power from those around him.

Martlett- I like you because you're straight up - no bullshit. But just because I preach through typing only to pull people harder to the direction that makes change rather than taking it on the face from socialists, does not make me a radical. If you met me in real life, you'd be shocked how congenial and kind I am. I talk hard on here to stimulate thought or stamp out brain dead crap.

If the idiots knew how to think for themselves, I wouldn't have to be a dick about it. But NES is full of idiots, believe it or not, that need to be kicked. ScottS is one, but he's old, hopefully not yet lost, and stubborn. He wants the same things that I do, he just doesn't know how to get them. Or doesn't care to.

 

[flintoid]

.

 

[william_munny]

It definitely cracks me up how many on here feel that we should be able to henpick which laws are ok to break if they don't fit their particular agenda.

As I said before, I don't advocate breaking the law.

Then when someone dares to say that someone broke the law and got what they deserved, the person is accused of "outing themselves"! WTF is that?

That's the part I have a problem with here. Did he really get what he deserved? Why did he deserve it? There's a difference between facing the consequences and deserving them. If you think he deserves to be in prison for breaking these laws, then you don't oppose the laws. You can't condemn the crime if you condone the punishment.

 

[Martlet]

moderates don't change anything, IMO. In order to create results in legistlation, especially when you are fighting against the current, I personally think it is a "take your stand" rather than "take your social position." Because one raises eye brows or stimulates thought (depending on the the approach), and the other lays down and gets ignored.

I don't necessarily disagree. My comment was two-fold. Primarily, though, it was directed at several posters I know to be sucking the gov't teat yet screaming extremist ideals. IE: hypocrite.

Very true. Except that, in relation to my first point, people dog piling on the guy because of media fed nuggets of "how terrible he is" only hurts us, because it encourages such behavior- the behavior of feeding on media spin and hype and buying into the story that you are told. I get it- he could be a piece of shit. He probably was. But as a 2A supporter, I am not going to barf it back up even if it's obvious, because all it does is provide written proof of compliance... on media- the internet. Do you get this? Does anyone else? Is my outrage understandable or am I just pissing into the wind here on Fuddy Duddy NES?

I hear what you're saying, I just liken it into the other cops who cover up for or run to protect other shit bag cops. We're going to sing the praises of a probable shit bag who knowingly broke the law? I'm not. IMHO, it makes us look like idiots and hurts us more than dog piling him.

Yeah, you guys hate this guy because of what the media told you. Did he hurt anyone? Was he a "threat" like the media hyped him to be? Do you and ScottS believe everything you read on the internet? Because I question your similar train of thought makes me obviously deranged because it's inconvenient?

ScottS was telling me that he thought I was unsuitable for my 2nd Amendment right because I questioned his judgement. That's very convenient, for him. Gun control, for him... removes the rights of those around him that he doesn't want to be armed. Whether they harm him or not. But his lack of testicular fortitude gives him the desire to remove power from those around him.

Martlett- I like you because you're straight up - no bullshit. But just because I preach through typing only to pull people harder to the direction that makes change rather than taking it on the face from socialists, does not make me a radical. If you met me in real life, you'd be shocked how congenial and kind I am. I talk hard on here to stimulate thought or stamp out brain dead crap.

If the idiots knew how to think for themselves, I wouldn't have to be a dick about it. But NES is full of idiots, believe it or not, that need to be kicked. ScottS is one, but he's old, hopefully not yet lost, and stubborn. He wants the same things that I do, he just doesn't know how to get them. Or doesn't care to.

Don't read into what I write. I don't hate the guy at all. Neither do I care if he's a shit bag. Shit bags, idiots, and felons should have as much right to the 2nd Amendment as I do.

I also don't think I've ever called you an extremist. I don't think I've ever heard you say the Unabomber should be President nor have I accused you of sitting on your couch crying for a revolution you're too afraid to start.

By most standards, I'm an extremists. The very loud minority on NES make me look like Granny Warren, though.

 

[Coyote33]

The only reason this is a story is because some guns were involved. Take out the guns an lets look at this from another angle. GI Joe goes to war and violates the UCMJ by bringing home (xxx) his wife rats him out for it and he gets arrested. If you take the guns out of it, it is less likely to upset the NES "I should be able to own a nuke if I want" crowd. He smuggled something home. Leave it at that. Its the smuggling, not the guns.

If it were a pair of shoes or a shirt, would it still be "smuggling"?

 

[Martlet]

If it were a pair of shoes or a shirt, would it still be "smuggling"?

If it were illegal. Makes no difference if it's a shirt, watch, or box of alligators.

 

[MassMark]

Sorry to steer off course, but this thread reminds me of all the 'wonderful things' my uncle brought back from WWII - especially since he was on a B-17 and my father from Korea by way of Japan...Nowadays? My buddies son was forbidden from bringing a rock back from Afghanistan that he picked up near the spot where one of his friends was killed...Sad really...

 

[spcantwell]

I don't necessarily disagree. My comment was two-fold. Primarily, though, it was directed at several posters I know to be sucking the gov't teat yet screaming extremist ideals. IE: hypocrite.

I hear what you're saying, I just liken it into the other cops who cover up for or run to protect other shit bag cops. We're going to sing the praises of a probable shit bag who knowingly broke the law? I'm not. IMHO, it makes us look like idiots and hurts us more than dog piling him.

Don't read into what I write. I don't hate the guy at all. Neither do I care if he's a shit bag. Shit bags, idiots, and felons should have as much right to the 2nd Amendment as I do.

I also don't think I've ever called you an extremist. I don't think I've ever heard you say the Unabomber should be President nor have I accused you of sitting on your couch crying for a revolution you're too afraid to start.

By most standards, I'm an extremists. The very loud minority on NES make me look like Granny Warren, though.

Didnt you know? If you are not the same brand of extreamist then the only possible choice is that you want to ban all weapons.

BTW, dont you know that its not important what you type, the only thing important is what others dont bother to read...

 

[Boghog1]

Didnt you know? If you are not the same brand of extreamist then the only possible choice is that you want to ban all weapons.

BTW, dont you know that its not important what you type, the only thing important is what others dont bother to read...

no one is saying you want to ban all weapons but wanting to ban any weapon makes you the same s those that want to ban weapons. don't like don't work for or condone the banning of weapons especially because they look a certain way.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This illustrates the cultural shift that occurs after any item has been banned for a generation or more.

Few on this list would consider someone "evil" or "getting what they deserved" because they bought a new AR 30 round mag at a gun show, however, change that violation to undocumented procurement/mfgr of an NFA weapon and many of those same people move from "that's a stupid law, sorry he got hung up on it" to "it's prohibited, therefore, he got what he deserved". The battle over so-called AWs today is as much a cultural one as a legal/legislative one - convincing the public to shift its collective mindset to "It's unthinkable that ordinary people would be allowed to own those".

 

[Dench]

This illustrates the cultural shift that occurs after any item has been banned for a generation or more.

Few on this list would consider someone "evil" or "getting what they deserved" because they bought a new AR 30 round mag at a gun show, however, change that violation to undocumented procurement/mfgr of an NFA weapon and many of those from "that's a stupid law, sorry he got hung up on it" to "it's prohibited, therefore, he got what he deserved". The battle over so-called AWs today is as much a cultural one as a legal/legislative one - convincing the public to shift its collective mindset to "It's unthinkable that ordinary people would be allowed to own those".

very well said.

 

[weekendracer]

Am I the only one thinking that a sear/control group would have never been noticed?