PDA

View Full Version : Machining a machine gun in the US



Seastar
08-23-2007, 10:09 PM
So as not to hijack a thread I decided to start another.
The title is so those who have no interest in such things or who live where such things are prohibited would not view this post.
In another thread I was asked about building 30 and 50 caliber Browning machine guns.
Here is the way any citizen of the US can do it.
Buy a kit of demiled parts from any one of several vendors - more on that later.
These kits will all lack the critical right side plate. That's the part the BATF considers to be the "gun". All the rest of the parts are just that, metal parts.
They are not controlled or illegal to own, sell, etc.
Then buy from one of several vendors a partially completed right side plate (not considered a gun) and finish machine it using readilly available drawings and specificiions. Or, start from scratch and machine a right side plate.
Note that this plate must conform to a BATF approved design for a semi-automatic version of the Browning. You must also modify (machine) the internal parts to go with the right side plate so that full auto parts cannot be installed. The machining requires at a minimum a lathe,a mill, a drill press, a press or rivet gun to set rivets and the usual hand and hand power tools and some machining skill.
You then carefully assemble the parts into a functional semi-auto firearm.
If you want a full auto Browning you must find one for sale and buy it or buy a registered full auto right side plate and build your own.

It is absolutely illegal to build your own full auto gun from scratch.

Now then bead blast and parkerize or blue or paint the weapon and go have fun.
Here are the websites for information on parts kits, how to build, reloading and anything else you might want to know about this subject.
www.1919A4.com
www.M2HB.net
Here are some of the machineguns and cannons I have built.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8301/cimg0318ra8.th.jpg (http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cimg0318ra8.jpg)

If you want to build cannons that is a different subject.
Bill

rotate
08-23-2007, 10:15 PM
Thanks for that explanation. I've always wonder what part of the gun was considered the heart of the machine. Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "righ side plate" and what does it look like? Why is it that this part considered the most critical?

BTW, are you saying that you can buy a rifled barrel of a gun and it's not considered a fire arm?

Rustybolt
08-23-2007, 10:35 PM
BTW, are you saying that you can buy a rifled barrel of a gun and it's not considered a fire arm?
Reply With Quote

Correct. Only the reciever(The part that all the other parts are attached to) is considered a firearm.
For rifles(long guns) as long as it's semi auto only and has a barrel length of 16 inches minimum, it's OK to build. it also has to be .50 cal or under.

Seastar
08-23-2007, 10:45 PM
The barrel of a gun is just another metal part as far as the BATF is concerned. They are freely bought and sold.
The Browning machine guns all have a receiver that is rectangular - top, bottom, left and right sides. The right side plate is exactly that, the right side of the receiver of the gun.
Here is a picture of a M2HB I built that has the right side plate toward the camera.
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3348/cimg0336bp2.th.jpg (http://img77.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cimg0336bp2.jpg)
The gun is in a mount that obscures part of the RSP but you will get the idea.
Bill

Doc Nickel
08-23-2007, 11:18 PM
BTW, are you saying that you can buy a rifled barrel of a gun and it's not considered a fire arm?

-Yes. The only part of a gun that's considered the "gun" is the part with the serial number, typically the receiver.

For most pistols, it's the frame/grip. Easy and clear on something like a Colt 1911 or a Glock, since it's the main part of the gun, including the handle. A little less clear on something like an old Colt SAA, where the grip strap and trigger guard are seperate from the frame that holds the cylinder. Here, it's the frame, the part that holds the cylinder, that's considered the "gun".

Most rifles are the same way- Typically it's the part the bolt rides it and the barrel attaches to. In most bolt-actions, it's the part you'd drill and tap for a scope mount. (Assuming you weren't mounting a 'scope "Scout" style, but hey, there's always exceptions.)

But then, there's some guns, such as the H&K battle rifles and the M-16/AR-15 styles, that have an upper and lower receiver half. In both cases, the upper holds the bolt and barrel, while the lower is little more than a detachable trigger mechanism. In these, it's the trigger portion that's the legal receiver; you can own multiple upper halves and interchange them freely (assuming the barrels are longer than 16".)

There's a few obscure ones out there, like the aforementioned Browning belt-feds, where only a portion of the reciever is really considered the legal reciever, but suffice it to say that there's only the one part of any firearm (well, semi-auto anyway) that's controlled. The rest- barrels, bolts, trigger parts, stocks, sights, magazines, furniture, etc.- are all free to be bought, sold, traded or whatever.

(With the usual exceptions; rifle barrels have to be longer than 16", shotgun barrels longer than 18", you can't have a shoulder stock for a handgun [with the exception to the exception of blackpowder guns- you can have a short-barreled, wood-stocked cap-and-ball revolver, if you wish] and some places, like California, still restrict things like folding/telescoping stocks and magazine sizes. Which mean, if you listened to Evan, that a site like Gunbroker.com would be collapsing Californian Democracy as we speak- quite probably leading to the entire West Coast sliding off into the sea. :D )

Doc.

Forrest Addy
08-23-2007, 11:57 PM
Awww! Dang! Does that mean I have to dismantle the full scale 16" Gatling I was gonna use battle ship ammo in? 200 16" inch rounds a minute at a ton per shell out of 7 barrels? It was only gonna be a working hobby piece and I was only gonna target WalMarts. We got three in its 27,000 yard range.

Doc Nickel
08-24-2007, 12:18 AM
Dunno about the legal aspect, Forrest, but I'd really like to see a video of the loading/ramming crew in action when it fires. :D

Now, does one crew service all six barrels, or are there six crews that ride around inside a rotary breech like a carnival Tilt-a-Whirl? How fast would you have to spin 'em so they wouldn't fall off the floor as each barrel passes the apex?

Doc.

TECHSHOP
08-24-2007, 12:25 AM
Forrest Addy:
You are the master!
Not only have you made this thing, you keep it hidden on Google Earth!

I won't get too deep into the the whole Class III, Form 4, C&R, pre-86 DS, post 86 DS, SBR, DD, or what part is/is not a "machinegun" to the GOV.

Not that I would know anything about all that...

wierdscience
08-24-2007, 01:03 AM
If you guys would just elect me dicta.....uh president I could fix all this gun non-sense.

Just two laws reguarding gun control.......

#1"anyone operating a self-propelled howitzer or heavy tank must have a current drivers license or learners permit."

#2"anyone operating a self-propelled howitzer or heavy tank must maintain at least 50% rubber on the vehicles treads"(don't want to ruin the streets):D

ProGunOne
08-24-2007, 01:26 AM
Rotate, here's a picture of a semi-auto 1919 right side plate.


http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7355/1919semisideplaterv6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7355/1919semisideplaterv6.ffac800352.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=524&i=1919semisideplaterv6.jpg)

Forrest Addy
08-24-2007, 02:43 AM
Doc, would you believe it's belt fed? I'm using old bulldozer tracks for ammobelts. I was going to use a clip but I couldn't find a spring at Home Depot.

Actually its rail fed. 50 projectile rounds per standard flat car. The loader runs the car into the stripper and that mechanism scrapes them off onto a conveyor. The powder bag handling still has to be worked out because of the loading accellerations but I got an idea using Sono-Tube.

Doc Nickel
08-24-2007, 03:00 AM
The powder bag handling still has to be worked out because of the loading accellerations but I got an idea using Sono-Tube.

-Go caseless. Just extrude single 110-pound grains of blackpowder and have them in a seperate hopper.

Oh, and watch out for static buildup. :D

Doc.

HTRN
08-24-2007, 03:18 AM
Well, not quite as daring as Forrests plan, but there were some fairly large Hotchkiss revolving cannons - 47mm(3 pdr) and 37mm(1 pdr).

Sarco has a 1pdr Hotchkiss sittting in their showroom (http://www.sarcoinc.com/chollystoy.html)(bought in a cleanout sale from Navy Arms), all polished brass.

Might make an interesting project.:D Perhaps a 4 bore, 5 barrel job?


HTRN

deth502
08-24-2007, 08:31 AM
NICE m2, seastar :D

bhjones
08-24-2007, 01:19 PM
I'm curious about restrictions on hand cranked guns. Can you build a hand crank mechanism that uses gearing to increase rotational speed? What about a flywheel?

I'm guessing fitting a Gatling with an electric motor does not please the good people at BATF..

Ausserdog
08-24-2007, 02:15 PM
Brett,
As long as it is a deliberate motion, you're fine. Hand cranks are ok because you have to keep cranking it to fire it. Gearing would have no real effect on it other than the rate of fire.

An electric motor is a no-go because as long as you held down the switch (only one motion/actuation) it would continue to fire. I expect that a flywheel would fall under the same issues as the electric motor - it continues to fire without any additional input from you.

BigBoy1
08-24-2007, 02:35 PM
-
(With the usual exceptions; rifle barrels have to be longer than 16", shotgun barrels longer than 18", you can't have a shoulder stock for a handgun [with the exception to the exception of blackpowder guns- you can have a short-barreled, wood-stocked cap-and-ball revolver, if you wish]
Doc.

Not to pic at nits, but cartridge pistols with stocks are considered legal.

The only proviso is that they must be on the BATF's list of Curio and Relic Weapons to be considered legal. Also, the shoulder stock that attached to the pistol must be an original one, not a replica. I have several stocked pistols in my collection. Luger, Mauser Military, Browning Hi Power, Finnish Lathi, etc.

Bill

pressurerelief
08-24-2007, 03:04 PM
A hand cranked gun with an electric motor, didn't GE come up with that?

Rick

bhjones
08-24-2007, 04:06 PM
They "Bring good things to life". Some of these things have multiple barrels and a very high rate of fire.


A hand cranked gun with an electric motor, didn't GE come up with that?

Rick

CypherNinja
08-24-2007, 04:15 PM
I'll just go ahead and clarify this (as I understand it) for the benefit of all here.

As far as guidelines for what's considered the 'receiver', the ATF has a list:


Barrel attachment point
Stock attachment point
Magazine well
Houses bolt
Houses trigger group


Whichever part scores the highest on this list gets a serial number and is labeled the 'receiver'. :) Everything else is just parts.

This procedure can get a bit weird for some designs, particularly belt-feds with rivet together receiver plates, so some of the decisions end up looking a bit abstract. ;)

CypherNinja
08-24-2007, 04:19 PM
(OOOPS!!! I accidentally hit Quote instead of Edit and didn't realize it. :o )


The best part of Forrest Addy's idea is that if it was powered by 100 guys on exercise bikes it'd be legal on a Form 1. (Destructive Device)

Doc Nickel
08-24-2007, 05:19 PM
[I]The best part of Forrest Addy's idea is that if it was powered by 100 guys on exercise bikes it'd be legal on a Form 1. (Destructive Device)

-Yeah, but you'd be paying the $200 transfer tax on each shell.

Admittedly that's a small fee considering what it costs to manufacture a 16" high-explosive shell that literally weighs a ton, but still, it'll add up in a hurry at 200 rounds per minute. :D

Doc.

alcova
08-24-2007, 05:31 PM
One thing you have to concider in gearing up the rotational speed is, you can't get the bullet out of the barrels any faster...in the case of the Gatling Guns with an outside frame, you can rotate barrels fast enough to have the bullet hit the frame crosspiece that supports the muzzle end of the barrels.
Some of the early Gatlings had crossspieces that angled downward and the later ones had arched pieces the give just a tad more room to help avoid the bullet hits.

With the design of the newer guns with internal supports, you have less problems, but you still have limits as to how fast you can rotate barrels as the bullets has to leave for case extraction.

Alcova

bhjones
08-24-2007, 06:18 PM
I don't know how it was solved, but given the rate of sustained fire the motor driven weapons muster, some smart engineer solved it.


One thing you have to concider in gearing up the rotational speed is, you can't get the bullet out of the barrels any faster...in the case of the Gatling Guns with an outside frame, you can rotate barrels fast enough to have the bullet hit the frame crosspiece that supports the muzzle end of the barrels.
Some of the early Gatlings had crossspieces that angled downward and the later ones had arched pieces the give just a tad more room to help avoid the bullet hits.

With the design of the newer guns with internal supports, you have less problems, but you still have limits as to how fast you can rotate barrels as the bullets has to leave for case extraction.

Alcova

IOWOLF
08-24-2007, 06:54 PM
Not to pic at nits, but cartridge pistols with stocks are considered legal.

The only proviso is that they must be on the BATF's list of Curio and Relic Weapons to be considered legal. Also, the shoulder stock that attached to the pistol must be an original one, not a replica. I have several stocked pistols in my collection. Luger, Mauser Military, Browning Hi Power, Finnish Lathi, etc.

Bill

If/when you own one you know that, and if you go to the BATFE web site there would be a lot less questions here on the subject, and you would get straight answers like above, not..."my friend said his cousins wifes uncle(who lives in Canada) says it is legal according to his dad who went to prison and heard it was. BLAH,BLAH.

The US laws on firearms are nothing to second guess.:mad:

Rustybolt
08-24-2007, 07:28 PM
One thing you have to concider in gearing up the rotational speed is, you can't get the bullet out of the barrels any faster...in the case of the Gatling Guns with an outside frame, you can rotate barrels fast enough to have the bullet hit the frame crosspiece that supports the muzzle end of the barrels.
Some of the early Gatlings had crossspieces that angled downward and the later ones had arched pieces the give just a tad more room to help avoid the bullet hits.

With the design of the newer guns with internal supports, you have less problems, but you still have limits as to how fast you can rotate barrels as the bullets has to leave for case extraction.

Alcova




Well. That's exactly what the naval ordanance department and GE did with a gattling gun from the smithsonian. They put a motor on it. They couldn't feed it fast enough.



And Forrest. That would be considered a 'destructive device' by the BATFE and require special licensing. There are working canon and machine guns in the hands of private collectors.

CypherNinja
08-24-2007, 11:32 PM
And Forrest. That would be considered a 'destructive device' by the BATFE and require special licensing. There are working canon and machine guns in the hands of private collectors.

Licensing? We haven't gone that far yet. All you need is a form.

Like this one. (http://www.leadshirts.com/misc/Form1.pdf) :D

I even filled it out for him. :D

ProGunOne
08-25-2007, 02:11 AM
Anybody had the pleasure of being at the Knob Creek shoot when the fellow with the 7.62 mini gun lets loose?

BigBoy1
08-26-2007, 04:47 PM
I was at that Knob Creek shoot but did not witness the accident. I was in the pole barn area, looking for some spare parts. Didn't know anything had happened until I heard the ambulances arrive.

The following day, the mini-guns on the firing line looked liked captured animal as they had about 6 wide moving straps over the top of them and bunches of cement block to hold the straps on the ground.

Bill

Doc Nickel
08-26-2007, 09:07 PM
In case anyone is interested, Evan and I have continued on our... conversation... over PMs for the past several days.

It's actually quite interesting, in that he's continually insisting that looking at what he calls 'instructions' of an illegal activity (to wit, the cutting off of a barrel) are themselves illegal.

He's even quoted a UN Resolution at me, as "proof" that instructions or descriptions of illegal activities, are themselves illegal.

Which would, of course, make my DVD copy of For a Few Dollars More into illegal contraband, as it clearly details bank robbery, safecracking and murder. :D

Evan's stated primary worry is that showing such details- IE, my photos of chopping a barrel- amount to an illegal action, or description of an illegal action, and will potentially lead to the HSM board being "blacklisted" by various filtering systems.

Despite the fact that, y'know, people have been discussing firearms, silencers and full-autos for the past six and a half years (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=331). Which makes Evan's worry somewhat curious- besides the fact he voiced no such worry nine months ago when I posted photos of my previous snub-job, and he participated at length in the following gun-law discussion.

Now, while I know the supposed illegality of the "instructions" is utter bunk- Orwell's "thought police" are not yet here- I have to ask; does anyone consider the potential "blacklisting" of the HSM board an issue? Knowing how ISP-level filtering works, I know it's far more biased towards trying to stop spam, child porn, Nigerian money schemes, DDOS attacks and other sorts of online maliciousness, and is essentially unconcerned with pictures of guns or even descriptions on how to modify them illegally.

Is there any actual reason to be concerned? As Evan's repeated and increasingly-strained attempts to convince me otherwise, strike me as nothing more than crocodile tears, brought on by my asking him to tone down the non-machining posts.

(And yes, I'm well aware of the hypocrisy of this not being a post about machining. Thank you, I'm sure we can move past it now. :D )

Doc.

Todd Tolhurst
08-26-2007, 09:56 PM
Of course it's not an issue. And suppose it is? The only way we can avoid censorship is to practice censorship?

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's a very American sentiment, and perhaps one which is now foreign to Evan.

Dawai
08-26-2007, 10:05 PM
Get over? the things I love, Guns, Motorcycles, streetrods.

I do machining so I can continue to enjoy the above, not them so I can love machining.

Are the tools the hobby, or the ability to continue the hobby?

andy_b
08-26-2007, 10:55 PM
my guess is that if there were 20 topics per day regarding gunsmithing and photos of firearms projects, that some U.S. government locations as well as various educational institutions (middle schools and high schools and such) may block the site. i know of several such instances, but the volume of posts pertaining to forbidden topics would need to be MUCH greater. an occasional post on gunsmithing activities isn't enough to filter the site. unless of course you are located in Iran, China or North Korea. as far as i'm aware of Canada has not yet been taken over by muslim extremists or communists.

andy b.

ps- i am familiar with various site restrictions because i personally know folks that work for either the U.S. government or public schools.

Doc Nickel
08-26-2007, 11:55 PM
ps- i am familiar with various site restrictions because i personally know folks that work for either the U.S. government or public schools.

-As am I. I've been told by several actual or potential customers that my site was blocked at one time or another by a school or workplace "net nanny" type firewall, typically because it contains the word "gun"- as in "paintball gun", but the keyword lists usually don't differentiate.

Half the time, a quick word to whoever handles the firewall or filter can get the site put back on the "white list" or "known approved" list- which typically stays available regardless of keyword combinations.

Evan has spent three days now, since the old thread was closed, trying to tell me that my posting those photos was somehow evil, illegal or at least immoral, and has expressed a curious level of worry that such postings will lead to the HSM being blacklisted.

How, he doesn't say. Why, he doesn't say that either, other than by keyword- and interestingly enough, neither of my original barrel-shortening posts had ANY keywords, in the beginning. It was only through subesquent discussion that those evil, nasty words cropped up. Why my recent posts seem to matter more than the six years' worth of prior posts, well, apparently Google can give relevance to search results by date, so therefore the hypothetical filter/blacklist can as well, right? Therefore last year's discussion on full-auto conversions doesn't matter, but this years' keywordless photos does? :D

Doc.

Rif
08-26-2007, 11:56 PM
My take on the whole self-censorship issue is this: If any of us have to concern ourselves with what we post may violate the laws of some country, that we may have not even heard of, there would probably be very little we could discuss. In fact, most of us are probably not even aware of all of the laws that may affect us in our own countries. (Ok, let's argue the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" thing. After the hypocritical judge makes that statement, he goes back to his chamber to look up the law during a recess.)

So, following this whole self-censorship issue to it's logical conclusion, I would have to consult with many international lawyers before I could post the blueprints to a mythical machine gun that could be made on cheap 7x12 mini lathe in a single evening. Who knows, I may be violating the laws of some pigmy tribe, in Borneo, that may have an internet connection? I could just see that extradition order now. :)

I have enough to concern myself with the laws of my own country (i.e. The number of American made parts required for a certain piece of equipment to no longer be concidered an illegal import.) than to worry about the laws of that tribe in Borneo....or whether they will ban a web site.

Brian

Rif
08-27-2007, 12:01 AM
-As am I. I've been told by several actual or potential customers that my site was blocked at one time or another by a school or workplace "net nanny" type firewall, typically because it contains the word "gun"- as in "paintball gun", but the keyword lists usually don't differentiate.
.
.
snip
.
.
.
Doc.

I remember reading about where some kids were trying to find some information on the "blue footed boobie"....and were blocked. :D

Brian

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 12:50 AM
I remember reading about where some kids were trying to find some information on the "blue footed boobie"....and were blocked.

-Hell, I know that CNN was blocked by about every school in California, for most of a week, just after they installed some shiny new filtering software. Apparently the first word to trip it was "turgid". :D

And by the end of the week, it was blocking more than half the sites anyone tried, over terms as innocent as "cream". Their own reference pages became unviewable because several bilogy articles referred to "the sex of the arthropod can be determined by..."

Evan seems to think that, if something gets banned, blocked, filtered or blacklisted, then that's it. There's nothing anyone can do, the site is forever lost.

Except that I used to work with a fellow whose entire job description once involved handling that sort of thing- all he did every day was review black and white lists, adding new spamhauses to the black, and taking false positives off and putting it in the white.

It happens, it's normal, and usually a quick message off to the right person can get it cleared up in as little as a few minutes. But without ISP-level filtering, you and I would see far more spam. Two-thirds or more is filtered out at the backbone, and never gets anywhere near your inbox.

So "filters" and "blacklists" are not the evil black holes he thinks they are. Or, perhaps more to the point, hopes I'll believe.

Doc.

lazlo
08-27-2007, 01:54 AM
In case anyone is interested, Evan and I have continued on our... conversation... over PMs for the past several days.

It's actually quite interesting, in that he's continually insisting that looking at what he calls 'instructions' of an illegal activity (to wit, the cutting off of a barrel) are themselves illegal.

Oh, come on Doc -- we all know that Evan was pissed because you criticized his Junk Yard Wars dump truck, so tit-for-tat, he came over and shat on your post. :rolleyes:

You could have posted about the history of Home Shop Machinist Magazine and he would have found something to whine about.

It's more than a little amusing that he's spending so much time Googling random crap to "prove" that gunsmithing posts are illegal, immoral, and fattening, when the real issue is that you hurt his feelings :)

Evan
08-27-2007, 01:58 AM
So "filters" and "blacklists" are not the evil black holes he thinks they are. Or, perhaps more to the point, hopes I'll believe.
Talking through your hat again, eh doc?

re: SPEWS, a widely used block list:


Getting your address off of the SPEWS list is very challenging. Unlike an open relay or proxy list, there are no objective criteria and no automated test system for removal. Unlike most other subjective criteria lists (e.g. SBL, MAPS RBL) there is no path for people with listed addresses to open any conversation with the person or persons maintaining the list to get a clear statement of why an address is listed or what would have to occur to get an address de-listed.
...
Dealing with fanatics

A blacklisting may result in a chance to encounter examples of disturbingly abnormal psychology. In particular, a posting to a public forum to deal with a SPEWS listing is almost sure to result in some rabid email and probably some unauthorized security probing activity aimed at your systems. Assuming that the former doesn't actually include threats and the latter doesn't actually breach your security (both of which are suitable to report to the proper law enforcement agencies) you should not respond to either directly.

http://www.scconsult.com/bill/dnsblhelp.html#2-7



http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/05/18/21OPsecadvise_1.html
Why I hate RBLs

By Roger A. Grimes
May 18, 2007
Anti-spam real-time block lists become a royal pain when it comes to getting innocent servers off the list.

Donít get me wrong; RBLs have their purpose. Itís just that they have always been too easy to get on and way too hard to get off of. For most of their useful life, a single, solitary report to an RBL was all it took to get your companyís e-mail server put on notice. There was no authentication of the sender (and there still isnít) and no check to see if the reported e-mail server was actually in violation. The RBL simply put the offender on the list and didnít care enough to see if innocent servers were being wrongfully accused by malicious reporters.
That isn't the real problem although it is bad enough. What happens is that once you are listed you address/ip block is shared to other lists. To make it worse there are many blocking services that us multiple block lists called "composite lists" to filter and you have no way of knowing which ones they use, only that you are being blocked.



Even if you can determine which lists you are on it can be a daunting task to try and convince each one to remove you name in time to prevent it from being shared again to another list. In many cases the only easy solution is to abandon the address or resource name you were using.


To give you some idea of the magnitude of the problem here is a partial listing of the currently active Realtime Block Lists. This is less than a third of the currently active lists.




3y.spam.mrs.kithrup.com
access.redhawk.org
all.rbl.kropka.net
all.spamblock.unit.liu.se
assholes.madscience.nl
bl.borderworlds.dk
bl.csma.biz
bl.redhatgate.com
bl.spamcannibal.org
bl.spamcop.net
bl.starloop.com
bl.technovision.dk
blackhole.compu.net
blackholes.five-ten-sg.com
blackholes.intersil.net
blackholes.mail-abuse.org
blackholes.sandes.dk
blackholes.uceb.org
blackholes.wirehub.net
blacklist.informationwave.net
blacklist.sci.kun.nl
blacklist.spambag.org
block.blars.org
block.dnsbl.sorbs.net
blocked.hilli.dk
blocked.secnap.net
blocklist.squawk.com
blocklist2.squawk.com
blocktest.relays.osirusoft.com bogons.dnsiplists.completewhois.com
cart00ney.surriel.com
cbl.abuseat.org
dev.null.dk
dews.qmail.org
dialup.blacklist.jippg.org
dialup.rbl.kropka.net
dialups.mail-abuse.org
dialups.relays.osirusoft.com
dialups.visi.com
dnsbl.ahbl.org
dnsbl.antispam.or.id
dnsbl.cyberlogic.net
dnsbl.jammconsulting.com
dnsbl.kempt.net
dnsbl.njabl.org
dnsbl.solid.net
dnsbl.sorbs.net
dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net
dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net
dsbl.dnsbl.net.au
duinv.aupads.org
dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net
dul.ru
dun.dnsrbl.net
dynablock.njabl.org
dynablock.wirehub.net
fl.chickenboner.biz
flowgoaway.com
forbidden.icm.edu.pl
form.rbl.kropka.net
formmail.relays.monkeys.com hijacked.dnsiplists.completewhois.com
hil.habeas.com
http.dnsbl.sorbs.net
http.opm.blitzed.org
inflow.noflow.org
inputs.relays.osirusoft.com
intruders.docs.uu.se
ip.rbl.kropka.net
korea.services.net
l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net
l2.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net
lame-av.rbl.kropka.net
lbl.lagengymnastik.dk
list.dsbl.org
mail-abuse.blacklist.jippg.org
map.spam-rbl.com
misc.dnsbl.sorbs.net
msgid.bl.gweep.ca
multihop.dsbl.org
no-more-funn.moensted.dk
ohps.bl.reynolds.net.au
ohps.dnsbl.net.au
omrs.bl.reynolds.net.au
omrs.dnsbl.net.au
op.rbl.kropka.net
opm.blitzed.org
or.rbl.kropka.net
orbs.dorkslayers.com
orid.dnsbl.net.au
orvedb.aupads.org
osps.bl.reynolds.net.au
osps.dnsbl.net.au
osrs.bl.reynolds.net.au
osrs.dnsbl.net.au
outputs.relays.osirusoft.com
owfs.bl.reynolds.net.au
owfs.dnsbl.net.au
owps.bl.reynolds.net.au
owps.dnsbl.net.au
pdl.dnsbl.net.au
pm0-no-more.compu.net
ppbl.beat.st
probes.dnsbl.net.au
proxies.exsilia.net
proxies.relays.monkeys.com
proxy.bl.gweep.ca
proxy.relays.osirusoft.com
psbl.surriel.com
pss.spambusters.org.ar
rbl.cluecentral.net
rbl.rangers.eu.org
rbl.rope.net
rbl.schulte.org
rbl.snark.net
rbl.triumf.ca
rblmap.tu-berlin.de
rdts.bl.reynolds.net.au
rdts.dnsbl.net.au
relays.bl.gweep.ca
relays.bl.kundenserver.de
relays.dorkslayers.com
relays.mail-abuse.org
relays.nether.net
relays.ordb.org
relays.osirusoft.com
relays.visi.com
relaywatcher.n13mbl.com
ricn.bl.reynolds.net.au
ricn.dnsbl.net.au
rmst.bl.reynolds.net.au
rmst.dnsbl.net.au
rsbl.aupads.org
satos.rbl.cluecentral.net
sbbl.they.com
sbl.csma.biz
sbl.spamhaus.org
sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net
socks.dnsbl.sorbs.net
socks.opm.blitzed.org
socks.relays.osirusoft.com
sorbs.dnsbl.net.au
spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
spam.dnsrbl.net
spam.exsilia.net
spam.olsentech.net
spam.wytnij.to
spamguard.leadmon.net
spamhaus.relays.osirusoft.com
spammers.v6net.org
spamsites.dnsbl.net.au
spamsites.relays.osirusoft.com
spamsources.dnsbl.info
spamsources.fabel.dk
spamsources.relays.osirusoft.com
spamsources.yamta.org
spews.dnsbl.net.au
spews.relays.osirusoft.com
t1.bl.reynolds.net.au
t1.dnsbl.net.au
ucepn.dnsbl.net.au
unconfirmed.dsbl.org
vbl.messagelabs.com
vox.schpider.com
web.dnsbl.sorbs.net
whois.rfc-ignorant.org
will-spam-for-food.eu.org
wingate.opm.blitzed.org
xbl.selwerd.cx
xbl.spamhaus.org
ybl.megacity.org
zombie.dnsbl.sorbs.net
ztl.dorkslayers.com

Evan
08-27-2007, 02:01 AM
I see that Doc has no concept of what the word "Private" means, as in Private Messaging.

Anyone else should keep that in mind if Doc sends you a PM.

[edit]

He's even quoted a UN Resolution at me, as "proof" that instructions or descriptions of illegal activities, are themselves illegal.

Which would, of course, make my DVD copy of For a Few Dollars More into illegal contraband, as it clearly details bank robbery, safecracking and murder


I forgot to mention that Doc is lying about the contents of the PM's I sent.

rbregn
08-27-2007, 03:48 AM
Jeez Evan, get over it! You should have your meds checked. They may be letting become more active, but they are turning you into a whiney Arse
We get you point, but some of us just don't care, sorry if it hurts your feelings, but you should get off your high horse. I like the work you and Doc do. Somethings are off topic, but so what. Somethings I don't agree with , but so what. We are different people from different countries, I am an American living in China. I have had no problem with censorship on the internet for the most part. If I get in trouble and they deport me OH Well. I have more problems getting into my banks web site then anything else! If what ever government you have where you live wants to get you, they will. So you can either worry about it, don't do ANYTHING at all, or live your life as you see fit. Just stop telling us how to live ours!:eek:

Bguns
08-27-2007, 04:22 AM
Ditto,
Evan your posting has gotten strange since your new meds/retirement....

Evan
08-27-2007, 05:40 AM
Jeez Evan, get over it!

Get over what? I am giving Doc the benefit of the doubt. If he isn't intentionally lying about our private communications then he is too stupid to understand what I said.

This BBS is going to end up as a US only club where all the remaining members are the only ones that can still access it. Doc and others here do not seem to grasp what is happening around the world and even in the US itself. Times and the laws are changing rapidly. What was "OK" just a few years ago is no longer acceptable behaviour. If someone had told you a few years ago an obviously harmless grandmother would be denied boarding an aircraft unless she threw away her favorite fingernail file would you have believed it possible?


So you can either worry about it, don't do ANYTHING at all, or live your life as you see fit. Just stop telling us how to live ours!

It's a matter of waking up to reality. I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life but I am trying to make a point that the US centric view of the world is often not shared by many outside the US. I know it doesn't give a nice warm and fuzzy feeling to have your way of life criticized but it's time for a change, like it or not. Change will happen and is happening and it isn't because someone like me is telling you about it.

I wasn't upset about the criticism Doc made about my previous utility cart post although I did think it unecessary. I am upset about his current behaviour and in particular relating the supposed content of our personal communications without even taking the time and common courtesy to ask or at least notify me that he was doing so. I don't read every thread on this BBS and only stumbled on what he posted here as I do follow what particular members have to say sometimes.

I am now particularly upset with what he has said here in this thread about what I allegedly "said" to him as he has not correctly described what I said. I'm not talking about a matter of viewpoint or opinion but a matter of fact. This is an entirely different matter and unrelated to previous discussion.

I suggest that if you think I am over reacting that you think for a moment how you would feel if someone falsely described in public what you had said to them in private communications.

rbregn
08-27-2007, 05:58 AM
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

HTRN
08-27-2007, 06:16 AM
a better choice is:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/HTRN/Emoticons/beat-dead-horse.gif



HTRN

John Stevenson
08-27-2007, 06:41 AM
Evan,
I think you need to take a few weeks off away from the board.

You have the highest post ratio of anyone, 17,096 to date, not sure who's second but there are quite a few at 4K to 5K

This means that any newbies to this board are more likely to see your posts than any others.
In the light of what you have recently posted, even though YOU can't see anything wrong you are giving false and unsafe information.

There is no excuse for this, it's dangerous and foolhardy.

Perhaps it's the meds, perhaps it's other things , I don't know but you do need to take a pace back and put things in perspective.

.

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 06:44 AM
And this is why I chose to continue the conversation, although at this point, I can't be certain, anymore, that Evan isn't intentionally leading me on and/or pulling my leg.

[cracks knuckles]

Evan- SPEWS (http://www.spews.org/) and other block lists are first, optional, meaning an ISP can choose to implement it or not, and second, primarily for blocking spambots, known DDOS connections, and other scammers.

It, and most other such filters, has nothing at all to do with filtering out articles about guns, photos of guns, or anything remotely like them.

Third, being regional-ISP-level applications, and not state level, or as you first implied, country level, to "ban" HSM, someone would have to manage to get that application mounted on all, or nearly all, 200,000+ servers in the US.

Yes, some hosts and providers are not the best at keeping such lists updated, either through lack of manpower or sheer lack of interest. A few cases, however, does not in any way indicate a systemic, intentional blockage of a site- like HSM- due to a few keywords.

[snip list of "banned" sites]

Yeah, places like "spamsites.relays.osirusoft.com", "will-spam-for-food.eu.org", and " zombie.dnsbl.sorbs.net" are right up there with the trusted sites that are so wrongly blocked by evil keywords.

I asked you, days ago, to simply show me the law that makes my posting of some photos illegal- or, as your original reply (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showpost.php?p=301806&postcount=10) stated, even just "objectionable". Since then, you've tried to buffalo me with references to Australian ISP filtering, UN resolutions on small arms, quoting vague Canadian catch-all laws akin the the US' "disturbing the peace", that could apply to anything from jaywalking to arson, citations concerning posession of child porn, and links to spam-blocking list sources.

But no law on whether or not my posting those photos was illegal.

Hell, you've even tried to tell me that cached images in browser memory are "evidence" of having viewed those images, that could be found by forensic investigators.... despite the fact the images aren't illegal, viewing them isn't illegal, and having them in memory isn't illegal.


I see that Doc has no concept of what the word "Private" means, as in Private Messaging.

Anyone else should keep that in mind if Doc sends you a PM.

-Guilty as charged. Considering that I have come to believe you're having me on- if not, you're either vastly more stubborn than I gave you initial credit for, to the point of significant irrationality, or you're not anywhere near as smart as I'd originally assumed. But considering that I think you're playing with me, I saw little use in keeping the continuing conversation concealed.


I forgot to mention that Doc is lying about the contents of the PM's I sent.

-Am I? You quoted this UN Resolution (http://www.oilforfoodinquiry.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~UN+Protocol+aga inst+the+Illicit+Manufacturing+of+and+Trafficking+ in+Firearms.pdf/$file/UN+Protocol+against+the+Illicit+Manufacturing+of+a nd+Trafficking+in+Firearms.pdf), "UN Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms", specifically Article 5, paragraph 2 and 2(b). And I quote:


Article 5
Criminalization
1.Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may
be necessary to establish as criminal offences the following conduct, when
committed intentionally:
(a)Illicit manufacturing of firearms, their parts and components and
ammunition;
(b)Illicit trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and
ammunition;
(c)Falsifying or illicitly obliterating, removing or altering the marking(s) on
firearms required by article 8 of this Protocol.
2.Each State Party shall also adopt such legislative and other measures as
may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the following conduct:
(a)Subject to the basic concepts of its legal system, attempting to commit or
participating as an accomplice in an offence established in accordance with
paragraph 1 of this article; and
(b)Organizing, directing, aiding, abetting, facilitating or counselling the
commission of an offence established in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article.


This was your "smoking gun", for claiming that photos- or as you call them, "instructions"- of an illegal activity, are illegal because they "aid and abet" the commission of a crime.

However, you seem to have overlooked the rather important phrase commission- IE, doing, not looking, - and either didn't notice or hoped I'd overlook Paragraph 1, that states the signatories to the Resolution should themselves adopt laws to cover the described articles.

In other words, as the UN has no power whatsoever to make laws that affect a country's citizenry, and can only attempt to bind the government of that country to pass it's own laws, the entire document is irrelevant and utterly unrelated to your argument. Further, if one of those countries did, in fact, pass such a law, that should be easy to find and show me, right?

I then pointed out, as an analogy, that if just looking at or reading "instructions" on the commission of a crime, my copy of For a Few Dollars More would then be contraband, as it clearly shows bank robbery, safecracking and murder.

Evan seems to have as distorted a view on "lying" as he does on the Law. :D

Doc.

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 06:59 AM
Get over what? I am giving Doc the benefit of the doubt. If he isn't intentionally lying about our private communications then he is too stupid to understand what I said.

-If I'm too stupid, then spell it out for me, Evan.

Right now, leaving behind all the references to the illegality of child porn imagery, Australian ISPs blacklisting us, and toothless UN Resolutions, I am making one, simple request.

You stated this, here (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showpost.php?p=301873&postcount=28):


You may not know that even accessing such information accidentally on the net is enough to get somebody in trouble with the authorities in some countries.

And then this, from here (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showpost.php?p=301895&postcount=39):


It is a question of appropriateness as the effect of posting such information can not only result in the direct censorship of this website in some countries but might even place somebody in jeopardy.

-So my request is simple: Show me one law- any law- that states that it's illegal, even a misdemeanor, to look at photos or a description of, an illegal process.

Now, as I've said several times before, and you've already tried quoting before, I know that child porn is illegal, and it's the photo itself that's illegal, and that even viewing it is illegal. That's a known, a given.

But child porn is not gun photos, and just because the porn is illegal, does not mean all other photos are illegal by extension.

I didn't post child porn. I posted photos of a gun mod. Show me any law that makes my posting of those photos- or even a how-to text description- illegal in any fashion, in any country.

Forget everything else. It's irrelevant. This is the main point- whether or not my posting of those photos- not ones of machine gun auto sear dimensions, not of silencer plans, of those barrel reduction photos- was in any way illegal.

Doc.

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 07:20 AM
This BBS is going to end up as a US only club where all the remaining members are the only ones that can still access it.

-You have yet to demonstrate that such might be even remotely the case. So far your evidence for such is a reference to ISP-level filtering in Australia (that turns out to be voluntary, end-user-selectable, and primarily designed as spam-reduction) and a reference to a site that serves lists of known spambots and compromised servers to other hosts and providers for their filters.

Right now, we clearly have current and active members from Canada, England, Australia and New Zealand, and we've had at least a couple come in from China, which is commonly held up as an example of oppressive and totalitarian web-filtering.

So you're either crying "wolf!" or you're trying to generate some excuse to justify your original mean-spirited reply to my thread.


Doc and others here do not seem to grasp what is happening around the world and even in the US itself. Times and the laws are changing rapidly. What was "OK" just a few years ago is no longer acceptable behaviour. If someone had told you a few years ago an obviously harmless grandmother would be denied boarding an aircraft unless she threw away her favorite fingernail file would you have believed it possible?

-And now we have TSA rules tossed into the mix.

Yes, times are indeed a'changin'. But you'd think that, if they're changing as you say they are, you'd have some sort of evidence to back that claim up... wouldn't you?

And again, if such filters/blacklists were due to be emplaced in the near future, considering that members here were discussing machine guns, silencers and full-auto conversions six and a half years ago (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=331), then the damage, as it were, has already long since been done.

For that matter, and much more recently, I posted an almost-identical gun mod a mere nine monthgs ago (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=21956); in that thread, you posted no less than eleven times on the subject of Canadian Gun Laws, but at that time, mentioned neither the supposedly-illegal-in-Canada mod itself, the legality or illegality of posting the photos, nor expressed any worries about potential site bans or blacklists.


It's a matter of waking up to reality.

-Physician, heal theyself.


I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life but I am trying to make a point that the US centric view of the world is often not shared by many outside the US.

-Granted. Enthusiastic agreement, even.

But that still doesn't show how my photos, "instructions" or posts are or were illegal, immoral or even fattening. Either here, or in Canada, or in the UK, or in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter.


I know it doesn't give a nice warm and fuzzy feeling to have your way of life criticized[...]

-Physician, HEAL thyself! :D


I suggest that if you think I am over reacting that you think for a moment how you would feel if someone falsely described in public what you had said to them in private communications.

-You are more than welcome, unreservedly, to post my PMs to you, verbatim. Please include the sentences of yours to which I was replying, and then yes, we'll see who is lying, won't we?

Doc.

Doc Nickel
08-27-2007, 07:21 AM
God I love this. :D

Doc.

[edit]
I suppose before anyone complains, I should explain that the above isn't a bait, it's a statement of fact. Regardless of the details, I often enjoy a good argument, and I'm enjoying this one. Call it mental exercise.

I'm not here to "win", and unlike some participants, I'll be happy to admit when I've been proven wrong. Because I'll have learned something either way.

IOWOLF
08-27-2007, 07:37 AM
I don't know about any one else, but I was glad the other thread was locked for just this reason, IT GOT OUT OF HAND.

I used to respect Evan, Hell He used to bitch about big ticket items like Using all CAPS, Thanx for showing me where the Caps lock button was Evan.

Go see your Dr. and take your laptop with you so he can see your ranting and he may change your meds.

And let's not forget Evan, You gave up all your rights to complain about what goes on in the U.S. when you Left. And this Site IS in the United States, no matter where you are.


Get some help Evan.