Chinese Type 81: A Rare Look

The Chinese Type 81 is a strange fusion of the AK, SKS, and Dragunov rifles and could be mistaken as an AK at a quick glance. The Type 81 is exceptionally rare in the USA, and today on TFBTV we look at perhaps the rarest variant of all: The 5.56 variant made exclusively for the US market called the EM356.

Tim Yan’s Type 81 Article:
http://www.redstararms.com/type81.pdf

Please subscribe!!! Click here.

Please subscribe!!! Click here.

Thanks to our sponsor Ventura Munitions. Without them TFBTV Would not be possible.


Alex C.

Alex is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Director of TFBTV. A native Texan with a penchant for gun collecting combined with a degree in History from Baylor University have contributed to a passion for both early and modern firearms. You can reach Alex at acapps@gocapps.com.


Advertisement

  • iksnilol

    Alex’ tag game is improving.

    ūüėõ

    • Alex and I go out every month to train on tightropes over the caldera of a volcano, making our tag game ever stronger, and stronger, until one day we will finally be ready…

  • whodywei

    The safety selector is different than the standard type 81.

    • Esh325

      That’s true. Good point. The regular one has a thumb safety.

      • whodywei

        Also if you look at the video, part of the gas regulator seems to be missing which might be a safety issue.

        • Esh325

          It seems like they might messed up with the 5.56×45 version of this rifle.

          • whodywei

            I think the previous owner might have lost it. I have seen this gun on gunbroker few weeks ago. See the type 87 below.

        • According to an article I read, the regulator on the 5.56 version is substantially different.

          • whodywei

            Correct, it came from Type 87.

  • Cal.Bar

    WHAAT? To hear folks talk today, you’d think that Pres. Obama were the ONLY president to use executive order to support gun control. So….. dear Pres. BUSH, that bastion of Republican values, actually did MORE with his executive order against guns and gun rights than Pre. Obama. Go figure.

    • Esh325

      Well most Republicans are aging and have dementia so they forget what their politicians actually stood for.

      • DaveP.

        As opposed to Democrats, who are very patriotic… it’s just they are patriotic for North Korea. America, they hate and want to destroy.

        • Esh325

          You can say what you want about the Democrats and they absolutely have their problems, but they are way better than the Republicans who start wars and send men to die when they don’t need to.

          • Kivaari

            Don’t forget FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton and the traitor Obama that is leading us into the third world war.

          • DaveP.

            Wilson lied us into WW1. FDR’s pro-China policy helped lead to war with Japan, and his silence about Germany reoccupying the Ruhr helped lead to WW2. Kennedy and Vietnam. Clintonian cowardice led to 9-11. Now Ombama and Iranian nukes…. but I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame that on someone else as well.
            Go learn some history.
            Tch, typical Democrat. Ignorant as dirt, opinionated as a three-year-old.

          • Esh325

            Since when does Iran have nukes?

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            Could you be more of a wuss? Republicans go to war to clean up the mess the democrats always leave when they are finally replaced! The next president will have to fix a world on fire thanks to President Hussein. It won’t be fixed with diplomacy. It will be fixed with bullets and blood. Your grandfather would be ashamed of your beliefs and actions if he was alive today. As should any sane, rational, American.

            Let’s forgo the politics and just focus on guns. Who has done more for gun rights in the past 25 years? Republicans!
            So shut up before you show more of your denial.

        • Kivaari

          You left out Cuba. To be a real democrat you have to have 2 or more Che’ T-shirts in your wardrobe. You may substitute red t-shirts with a yellow star. It would have been more obvious had they used a yellow stipe down the back.

      • milesfortis

        Tell us your home country so we can cast insults at your political system too. Coward.

    • gunsandrockets

      Taking into account GHW Bush appointed Souter and Thomas to SCOTUS and Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan, yeah Obama has been tremendously more destructive to gun rights in the United States than Bush.

  • kgallerno

    The Type 81 in 7.62X39 has been stuck in R.C.M.P. classification purgatory for close to 5 years now. Assuming it ever gets a non restricted classification here in Canada, these rifles would sell very well here. That’s a big if…..

    • The RCMP have absolutely no leg to stand on if they want to prohibit it as it is objectively not a variant of any prohibited rifle. So, being the morally void, politically activist bureaucratic pond-slime they are, they’re just not doing anything because they don’t want Canadians to have them.

    • The RCMP have absolutely no leg to stand on if they want to prohibit it as it is objectively not a variant of any prohibited rifle. So, being the morally void, politically activist bureaucratic pond-slime they are, they’re just not doing anything because they don’t want Canadians to have them.

      Image related.

      • Esh325

        Such an outrage Canadians cannot get access to one particular type of rifle even when they can get one that’s pretty much like it! (VZ 58)

        • Even more outrageous is that the RCMP isn’t saying they can’t have it (because they legally can’t say that) and are just just deciding to not to determine anything about its status to prevent them from ever buying it. It’s an outrage and a scandal.

        • Kivaari

          What’s outrageous is both Canadians and Americans are prohibited from having any damn rifle they want. None of them should be unlawful to own.

          • Esh325

            There are places in the world where you can’t get any semi auto rifle or they are incredibly hard to get leaving them with just manually operated firearms. There are also places that you can get fully automatics easily and cheaply, but those places aren’t exactly pillars of democracy…. And in the USA, the courts ruled a long time ago that the 2A doesn’t mean you are allowed to own any type of gun you want and carry it any way you want to. So while you may disagree with it, it is Constitutional to ban certain types of firearms. With the same token, the government also can’t ban certain types of firearms. The DC handgun ban was struck down as Unconstitutional. So there are restrictions, but also protections. With regards to Canada, I don’t know since they don’t have a 2A.

          • Kivaari

            What guns are banned? Machineguns, sawed off shotguns, rocket launchers, grenades, short barrel rifles are all legal under federal law. The NFA ’34 did not outlaw any guns. It used the interstate commerce clause to impose taxes on them. The infamous revenuers of that era were Alcohol and Tobacco agents. The feds wanted to impose the same $200 tax on handguns. The power elite wanted to make common people unable to buy guns. Considering $200 was a months pay or more, only the rich could buy them.
            That law is wrong on every level.

          • Esh325

            I didn’t say they were banned, but machine guns are difficult for the average citizen to get mostly because of the actual cost of them in the USA rather than the poultry 200$ tax today, so most gun owners don’t have machine guns as a result. SBR’s are more common. The argument that they wanted people unable to buy guns period doesn’t add up because the tax doesn’t apply to all firearms types. And while you say the “power elite” you do have to understand that the majority of the people at the time voted in FDR, not once but twice and wouldn’t have seen eye to eye with you on the gun issue.

          • Kivaari

            FDR was elected 3 times. The power elite wrote the laws. FDR was a socialist and violator of the constitution. Somewhat like Obama.
            So FDR would allow the people to have sporting arms, but nothing much else. Old bolt action army rifles were ok and even sold for $1.75 for a Krag. I suspect I know a bit about how politics works in the US thanks to a lazy and ignorant voter pool. Just like Obama being elected twice by people that don’t even know who Joe Biden is. Don’t blame me for how stupid democrats are.
            Do try to stay on topic.

          • Esh325

            My mistake, 3 times. So yes the people did really like him. FDR was instrumental in getting the 1934 gun control act passed. And not to mention the people that voted in the Congressman who in turned voted for the legislation. There are already “socialist” policies in the USA. Public schools for example, or your fire department. There are countries with even more socialist policies in Europe and they aren’t doing so bad. We can’t just call something the “power elite” because we disagree with it. Laws loosening gun laws go through the same process as restricting them does.

          • Kivaari

            Yes, we vote to tax ourselves to provide safety services. Public schools also are taxpayer funded, and paid for by all voter and property owners. Europeans are taxed well above what Americans are taxed. To get the free health care, free college, free one month vacation, they fork over large amounts of their income. What fails to get through to people is that nothing is free. Some Americans want all those services but wont contribute to pay for it. When the top 2% of Americans pay almost all the income taxes collected something is wrong. Every wage earner should contribute tax money. If a kid works at McDonald’s they should be paying taxes and not getting more back than they paid in.
            We have many laws on the books that get their because of ignorance.

          • Esh325

            Actually in Europe the rich pay more in taxes there are more regulations on banks and corporations.

          • Kivaari

            So, What? Why would we care? I think people in the US regardless of how much they earn should contribute. A low wage job should have income taxes on it. It is only fair to make everyone that works pay their fair share.

          • Esh325

            You think the rich pay too many taxes? The rich in America pay hardly nothing in proportion to what they earn.

          • John Gregory

            The rich pay the highest percentage of taxes that the IRS collects. the top 1% pay 75% of all taxes collected. What exactly IS enough for you?

          • gunsandrockets

            FDR was elected four time to the Presidency: 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944. After that nightmare the constitution was amended to limit any person to only two elected terms of the office of U.S. President.

          • Kivaari

            Correct. He dumped his VP that ran on the Progressive (socialist party ticket.

          • Esh325

            If he was such a nightmare, then why did people elect him 4 times?

          • gunsandrockets

            If electing him four times wasn’t a nightmare, why was the constitution so readily amended to prevent it from happening again?

          • Rock or Something

            The American public was rather naive at the time for “Progressive” Socialism, particularly during the Great Depression. Also, voters generally hate to switch horses midstream in a middle of a war, particularly one as massive as WWII.

          • Esh325

            Having a grandfather that was a WW2 vet and part of the greatest generation, I have to disagree about the naive part. They were a lot smarter than most Americans today, including moronic modern conservatives. Dwight Eisenhower who I think was the best US President, who was a Republican wouldn’t have stood a chance in today’s Republican party.

          • Kivaari

            Even serial killers have grandfathers. Being a WW2 veteran doesn’t impart great wisdom. Look at how many grandfathers worked in the death camps. I don’t trust their inner wisdom. My grandfather was in the Imperial Russian Army, he probably didn’t have a real opinion on modern rifles. He did like to show the kids how he marched with his very long rifle all while yelling commands in Russian.

          • milesfortis

            Well, I think somebody got in ahead of your grandfather when your parent was conceived.
            Your posts are those of a simpering jammie boy scared of all of us barbarian Americans

          • Aaron E

            He promised poor people money … just like today! Yet the economy did not turn around until after we entered WWII, and still took time afterwards. The big “boom” in American growth did not occur until after WWII in the 1950’s and start of 1960’s.

          • Aric Forse

            Need to make it 1 term!

          • Esh325

            I mean if you want power elite just look at how almost all the congressman who vote in favor of loosening gun laws in the USA are bribed by NRA. This is corruption in it’s purest form.

          • Kivaari

            Did it ever occur to you that most of those votes come because the politician also believes in the NRA message. You make it sound like no one would vote in favor of pro gun legislation without being bribed. That’s simply silly. Did you ever notice how pro-gun democrats at the state level are pro-gun, then when they get to DC become one more anti-gun democrat. Giffords and Giilibrand are obvious examples. They “support gun rights” while reacting to local people. They lie in other words to get elected, if they were truthful they would never have been elected in the first round.

          • Esh325

            If that were true Kivaari then why does the NRA spend millions bribing politicians? You underestimate the power of money in politics. I never said Republicans were only politicians being bribed. You have Democrats like Hilary Clinton being payed off by the banks to make speeches.

          • Kivaari

            The NRA supports candidates that support the NRA. Just like Green Peace donates to politicians that support the Green Peace agenda. You simply don’t understand much in life. Why would the NRA support a candidate that will never support gun owners?

          • Esh325

            You seem to misunderstand what I’m saying here. To make sure a politician always votes in your favor helps if you throw money at them. I never said the NRA was the only that bribed people. If a candidate stops towing the NRA line, they simply won’t get “campaign contributions” anymore.

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            You watch too much TV. Bribery in government isn’t that widespread. But we have drastically dividing viewpoints that are making it harder and harder to get things done and fix things. But right is right and the left is still wrong.

            Background checks won’t save anyone. But more armed people sure will. Having armed teachers at Newtown would of stopped that spree, having armed people in Paris would of stopped those high body counts, having armed people at a Christmas party in California would of lessened the body count, armed teaches at Columbine, armed teachers and students at Virginia Tech, armed citizens and workers at all the theater shootings, armed soldiers on bases at Fort Hood and recruiting stations , all those extra armed people would of prevented or at leased lessened those high body counts.
            That’s the only, undisputed fact we know would of helped and the only thing that makes any sense in preventing future mass shootings or at least lessening the body counts.

            Its not the right that doesn’t listen to suggestions, its the left. They don’t want nor care to hear about arming more poeple being the best answer to it all.

          • Esh325

            I don’t have a TV. If armed people made us safer then the USA would be the safest country on the earth because it has the most armed people, however it isn’t the safest actually. It has far higher gun deaths,gun injuries, and crimes than all the other countries in the developed world. Pretty pathetic for a country that isn’t at war or doesn’t have some type of internal conflict. It’s not wide spread?

          • Aaron E

            The strong movement to pass Concealed Carry laws in the U.S began in the mid to late 1980’s. States that passed those laws saw a dramatic decrease in homicide, and violent crime in general. That was documented by the Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. Other factors that helped those drops included heavy penalties for gun crimes, and mandatory sentencing for drug dealing (a big factor in many gun crimes).

            The only areas that remained high in violent crime were the big cities, that (up until recently), attempted to prohibit gun ownership/use by local law. Those laws allowed the criminals to run rampant while the innocent had no protection. In some cases (DC, Chicago, etc.) that still remains a problem.

            Don’t forget, that there is a disproportionate number of violent crimes committed by black men against black men. That is a result of broken families, failed schools, and communities that don’t have good infrastructure – often because of the aforementioned facts.

          • Esh325

            Show me where the department of justice stated that concealed carry laws lead to a decrease in crime.

          • Kivaari

            Look at the FBI (DoJ) crime stats. More guns equals less crime. facts are the facts, you emotions don’t matter.

          • Aric Forse

            Show me that it hasnt

          • AmericanRemnant

            Some here are claiming you are a troll. I prefer to use more scientific methods. Yep, they’re right.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            I actually feel pity for him. His obsession and harping is clearly the ramblings of someone on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum.

          • Martin t√∂refeldt

            Please leave people with autism outside of this. Some of us have famely members with autism and they dont like ith when they are used as an insult.

          • iksnilol

            Why the actual f### would you use autism as an insult?

            Seriously, not being a jerk isn’t *that* hard.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            His behavior and posting manner do fit the upper range of the Asperger’s spectrum. Quite a few trolls do. He latches onto a handful of pedantic details and won’t let go.

          • iksnilol

            Autism isn’t like that.

            *sigh*

            Troll =/= Autism

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Odd, because I know diagnosed Asperger’s cases who act exactly like that, both online and IRL.

            Notice he also stopped responding once called out.

            In any case, I’m not going to argue about it. The entire subthread was irrelevant.

          • jcitizen

            Wow! That needle is really bent! HA! ūüėÄ

          • Aric Forse

            On avg 20 people are shot every year by a white man with a rifle other than suicide, per cdc firearms facts. 20 x more likely to have black shoot you same way,

          • Lt_Scrounge

            They’ve also been cultivating a criminal culture since the 60s that doesn’t value education or achievement as much as “Street cred” which is only attained by criminal activity. The longer and more violent the crimes on the rap sheet, the higher the street cred. They are their own worst enemy.

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            Its not pathetic. Just like we lead the world in car accidents doesn’t mean cars need to be more restricted or banned.
            Increasing education and making weapons more common place and less some evil, magical killing device will help those statistics. Besides, we all see how when you gun control supporters quote the numbers you lump all firearm register deaths together, including suicides, police shootings, and self defense shootings.

            Guns used by criminals far exceeds gun accidents (34 to 2). Tell me again how a background check will prevent someone from obtaining and using a gun?

            The reason is clear, despite lots of guns being owned, there aren’t enough people owning, much less allowed in all areas to carry their guns.

            The mass shootings keep happening I’m gun free zones where unarmed people make for easy targets.

            Arm more people, educate more people, literally teach kids in schools proper firearms use and techniques and I’m confident gun accidents and criminal activity will plunge.

            The problem is the closest most liberal, urban dwelling kids learn guns from TV and gaming and not the responsibilities and serious tool a gun is, like knives and other tools.

          • Kivaari

            You do realise Esh is a troll, that keeps throwing the same lies around. One thing we know about such people is they fear facts and common sense. It is a shame that they get to vote.

          • AmericanRemnant

            Propagandists mix with truth and reality as well as oil and water mix.

          • milesfortis

            Esh doesn’t vote, He doesn’t vote because he’s a foreigner.
            Which fact needs to be constantly brought forward since it seem to quickly shut him the eff up.

          • Kivaari

            Even auto deaths are at 50 year lows in some states. With more cars than ever. We have more guns than ever and crime at 50 year lows. Anti-gunners don’t like the truth, it gets in the way of their feelings.

          • Aric Forse

            Yeah 2x more are killed by hands and fists every year than rifles per cdc.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Actually, everything you just said is factually wrong.

            You should be agitating for mandatory internet training to prevent ignorant people from looking stupid.

            But it’s obvious you’re obsessed with guns, since “gun deaths” are something you count, but not stabbings, beatings or poisonings.

            And you’re still wrong.

          • milesfortis

            Just remember, Esh is a foreigner and a foreign provocateur.
            Make that point in any response to him and he’ll usually shut right up, at least for awhile.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            In those areas where the law abiding citizens are allowed to carry, we are fairly safe. It’s those pesky gun free zones where the criminals go on shooting sprees unopposed. That’s why the shooter in Aurora chose the theater with the “No Guns Allowed” policy instead of the two that were closer to his home. He avoided the places where he was more likely to be shot. Funny thing about the Cinemark theater near me, since their “no guns allowed” sign doesn’t meet state minimum requirements, I can ignore it and carry my concealed handgun without worrying about breaking any laws.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            The NRA’s annual budget for lobbying is on par with what the major networks earn in an hour of advertising.

            You are one of the least informed idiots who’s ever been on this forum.

          • milesfortis

            Lying liars will always lie.
            We know you by your continued lying, foreigner.

          • Aric Forse

            Sounds like a catchy line from a taylor swift song

          • Rock or Something

            Bribing a politician is illegal in U.S. Federal and most State laws. Lobbying is different, because there is not guarantee a politician will vote if you support their candidacy one way or another. The book “Freedomnomics” explores this issues, and brings up examples of politician least likely susceptible to lobbying efforts, like for example a politician who is term prohibited and not up for re-election. Surprisingly, most are not any likely to vote differently even if lobbied by groups of a competing issue. The reason is simple, most politicians vote based on ingrained general beliefs.

          • Esh325

            Lobbing is nothing but legal bribery. Call it what you want. There isn’t a guanrantee? Then why does every politician who gets a contribution from the NRA or big oil companies vote in favor of their policies? I’m sorry but what you’re saying is bullshit. There are democrats that have been bribed by the NRA and vote in their favor. American politics will always be corrupted as long as we allow legal bribery.

          • milesfortis

            Lying again, I see.
            You foreigners are funny to us.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            What nation do you live in? Mythical Fantasy Unicorn Fartland?

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Ditto for Big Wind and Big Solar, but I guess those “bribes” are okay because you approve of them. Hypocrite.

          • Kivaari

            NRA money doesn’t bribe anyone. NRA money goes to those candidates most likely to vote pro-gun. If the pro-gun candidate faces an anti-gun candidate, they pro-gun candidate MAY get NRA money. If the candidate is a sometimes friend of the NRA, they stand a chance of getting nothing, not even a simple endorsement. NRA dollars need to go to supporters. What the NRA has is POWER that is far more important than money. If a candidate is anti-gun, they get an “F” grade. If the other candidate is a fair weather gun rights supporter, they may get a “D” and no money. Why waste money on candidates that do not already support the NRA?
            The “biggest lobbyist” is not the NRA. But an NRA endorsement, is a valued thing to have.
            I wonder why so many shallow thinkers like you come u with all the misinformation. It’s a failure to use common sense, so common on the left.

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            BULLSHIT! I got to call it now. The NRA allowed the NFA of 1986 to go unchallenged because they believed it wouldn’t stand and they wanted the firearms owner protections to pass, so they let it slide when they should of threw money at the problem and raised hell.

            The NRA isn’t “bribing” anyone. They say what’s up and are the largest outlet for us gun owners to draw a line in the sand and show our elected we are serious and don’t want any new gun laws, but would rather get rid of several stupid laws that just restrict gun ownership and don’t protect anyone, but the bad guys.

            At the end of the day, most of the mass shootings with the high body counts took place at gun free zones and most of the places with the most “gun violence” are places with lots of gun restrictions, like the south side of Chicago.

            You want to see bribery and hypocrisy, look at the democratic party and there elected like California state senator Leland Yee arrested in FBI sweep for conspiracy, corruption, and gun-trafficking.

            The conservative elected politicians that vote lock step with the NRA are doing what their constituents and their beliefs lead them to do. The NRA isn’t bribing or forcing anyone!

          • milesfortis

            You are a liar.
            Liars lie.
            Of course we know you for the lying foreign agent you are.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Yeah, they are bribing politicians with VOTES. Oh Wait the politicians ARE supposed to be representing their Constituents, and all that the NRA can do is inform and mobilize the VOTERS to turn out to vote for or against a candidate. So if Voters turn out to vote for or against a candidate because the NRA informed them of the candidate’s voting record, isn’t that actually promoting representation of the public and thereby insuring that the politician actually do their jobs of representing their constituents instead of representing gun grabbing billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Paul Allen and George Soros?

            For those who oppose the Citizens United decision, the McCain Feingold law that was overturned allowed people like the aforementioned billionaires to flood the airwaves with (including misleading or out right false) ads up until the night before the election but prevented groups like the multi million member organization like the NRA from running a single ad in rebuttal for the last 2 months before an election. It allowed groups with very relatively small membership like MoveOn, OFA, Every Town for Gun Safety, Moms demand Action, etc etc etc to run as many ads as a handful of billionaires wanted to pay for while suppressing the opposing voices of organizations representing MILLIONS of American citizens.

            BTW in the Colorado recall elections following the debacle of a gun control bill that the Democrats pushed through, the grassroots recall group got less than 10% as much from the NRA as the opponents to the recall got from Michael Bloomberg. Despite the Michael Bloomberg backed Democrats using illegal and libelous tactics to try and prevent the recall election from even happening, the grass roots group managed to unseat the Democrat Senate president and a Democrat representative while forcing another Democrat who had made a fool of herself during the hearings on the bill to resign or risk losing her seat to a Republican as the other two had done.

          • Fred Lead

            The NRA represents 5,000,000 people and spends $20 million annually on political activites. These are published facts. In 2013 Michael Bloomberg spent $12,000,000 in one Colorado election on two democrat representatives. That year he also spent $50,000,000 to fund an anti-gun group and millions more to fund a blog, another anti-gun group plus recurring costs for his established outlets like Bloomberg Business. He, however, does not have to publish his activities as the NRA does. When those representatives were recalled for their Unconstitutional magazine ban, costing the state $80,000,000 annually and 300 direct jobs due to Magpul leaving, the people of Colorado raised $362,000 for the recall effort. Bloomberg gave an additional $350,000 to the democrat reps and three other out of state sources gave $2,000,000. Despite the $2,000,000 difference the reps were recalled. So now which is corruption, an organization representing 5,000,000 people giving $20 million per year or a single person willing to outspend the NRA’s annual budget every month in every state? I assume you disagree with the NRA donating $5,000 to Ted Cruz on an off election season, but there is no problem with Bloomberg donating $12,000,000 during an active election and then raising an additional $2,350,000 from out of state sources to defend those reps from the will of the people of that state.
            If I were you I wouldn’t bring up lobbying or imply bribery again. The anti gun side far outspends the progun side and represents only a handful of people across the nation (by funding sources). Money doesn’t buy politicians because of they go against the will of the people they are removed from office and their expensive campaign was all for nothing.

          • Aric Forse

            I wouldnt need and ar if the govt didnt have m16s

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Most people don’t have machine guns because the manufacture of new transferable ones was banned in 1986.

            Once again, you demonstrate the dangers of untrained people on the internet.

            We need internet control.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Until they passed a ban on the importation or manufacture of new fully automatic weapons into the US in 1986, fully automatics were as cheap as $200 for a Sten Gun, $650 for an UZI or Mac 10, and $750 for a rebuilt Thompson M1 from WWII. I know because a friend with a Class III license was looking for a Thompson for me when I filed my tax return. In the time it took for my return to come back, the prices had jumped 30% and I decided against spending the money at that time. Now that Thompson is a $20,000+ collector’s item. My buddy had been in the Army for years and had picked up a number of interesting toys while overseas. His living room looked like a museum with some of the antique weapons from WWI and WWII that he had. Some of those weapons would be worth more than the house now.

            People used to be able to buy the parts, fill out a form, pay the fee and build a Sten in their garage. You can still buy all of the parts for under $200, but it is no longer legal to build the weapon.

            Your grandfather may have been a WWII veteran, but that doesn’t mean that he was right about what weapons people should be allowed to own. It’s not the weapons that commit the crimes, it’s the people using them. If you don’t think that criminals can get fully automatic weapons illegally in this country you’re crazy. If they want them, they will simply have their drug dealing buddies have some shipped in from south of the border where the law abiding citizens are barely allowed to own guns and the only gun store in the country is on a military base in Mexico City.

          • Esh325

            Kennedy was shot with an Italian bolt action rifle, yet there never was a piece of legislation that specifically targeted bolt action rifles or scopes! You could still buy Carcano rifles.

          • Kivaari

            What? Idiocy.

          • Kivaari

            Actually you are wrong. Behind the ’68 GCA was a stopping the importation of surplus military rifles. Within short order, that part was repealed. You didn’t know that? Really?

          • The ’68 law did clamp down on surplus imports…

          • Lt_Scrounge

            You couldn’t have them shipped to your home any longer like you could before the GCA of 1968.
            Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934, you could have a Thompson submachine gun shipped to your home from any of a number of mail order catalogues.

          • Kivaari

            An FFL cost $1.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            When I had mine in the late 80s and early 90s they were $10 a year. If I bought one gun a year from a wholesaler, the license paid for itself. When Clinton raised the cost, it stopped paying for itself, so I dropped it.

          • Esh325

            That’s not a specific ban against bolt actions, that’s was all guns.

          • gunsandrockets

            Actually court decisions regarding 2nd Amendment are in a tremendous amount of flux and disarray, aside from non-controversial subjects like felons in possession. Nothing has been settled yet.

          • Esh325

            Some things have been settled like the 2A can be legally regulated, others have not been settled.

          • gunsandrockets

            A. The Supreme Court so far has only addressed a handgun ban. All other types of firearms have yet to be addressed. US v Miller is NOT instructive.

            B. Even the DC v Heller case which struck down handgun bans might be overturned should Democrats get a chance to pick the next couple Supreme Court Justices. In fact Hillary has all but promised that is what she intends.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            The only decision about what types of fires that could be regulated is in direct opposition the Gun Control Act of 1968. The US v Miller decision regarding the National Firearms Act of 1934 stated that the only firearms that the US government could regulate were ones that were not considered suitable for militia use. At that time, that meant automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, and suppressors. NOW automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, AND suppressors are standard military issue. The Gun Control Act of 1968 sought to control guns based on whether they had a “sporting purpose” or not. Those that did not have a “sporting purpose” could be banned from importation. This included a number of small European made handguns including the Walther PP which was deemed too small for importation into the US. There is currently a lawsuit in the channels that challenges the 1986 ban on the importation or production of new selective fire weapons for civilian ownership. IF the Supreme Court abides with the ONLY precedent set forth in this regards, the ban will be struck down and possibly the NFA and GCA with it. I doubt we will ever return to the actually free marketplace for firearms that this country once enjoyed, but it would be a good start. For those who don’t know, prior to 1934 you could mail order fully automatic machine guns delivered to your home.

          • Fred Lead

            That is actually not true. It has been established that the government can require a check to see if your rights have not been revoked, but anything else is a violation of the constitution that people simply accept as law. There are only two categories, people with rights and people without rights. The states then decide the level of rights granted.

            The EOs do not help in any way, all they do is give the ATF more bait and ammo to convict people in what any jury would see is entrapment. Obama closed a loophole that never existed by exacerbating a problem an anti gun administration caused by removing access of the NICS system for low volume small sellers. Giving or selling guns to a restricted individual is a felony. Under no circumstances may a restricted individual legally obtain a gun. Enforcement is no better off now, untraceable guns are no more traceable, and criminals are no less inclined to illegally obtain guns to conduct illegal activities. A recent study out of Chicago found more than 97% of guns criminals obtained were given or sold by friends, acquaintances, and other criminals and not stolen or bought from a legal dealer. Those people are unaffected by these changes.

            The only thing that changed is the average Joe can be prosecuted and have his life ruined for legally selling a firearm, even if he does have a background check done through a FFL and firearm collectors now have no ability to treat firearms as an investment as they have since the beginning of this country. This has zero crime cutting ability, has no impact on the illegal gun trade, and is fully intended to slow or halt the legal trade of firearms.

          • Kivaari

            Gun ownership has been shown to be an individual right thanks to Heller and McDonald.

          • Kivaari

            Try to get a permit in DC. It is incredibly hard. No permit should be required to use a natural right.

          • Esh325

            Yet these same people will say you should need an ID to vote, but shouldn’t need to show anything to buy or carry a gun. Yes it’s harder to get a gun in DC compared to the rest of the USA, but it’s still possible.

          • Kivaari

            That’s simply dumb. When a person buys a gun in a store or at a show from a dealer, they complete a 4473, and must have ID that coordinates with the license. Requiring an ID to vote is common sense. I can’t buy a bottle of wine at Walmart without showing ID. I sure can’t buy a gun at Walmart without showing ID. You can’t lawfully drive without a license. You can’t board a commercial plane without ID. You can’t donate blood without ID. You can’t go to school without ID. So why should a person without ID be allowed to vote? It’s is just one more thing liberals want, so more unlawful voters can be made. Many states will issue an ID for free. No one should vote without ID. I can’t vote without showing my ID.

          • Esh325

            In many states in the USA, you can buy a gun without legally needing to do a background check such as what is called private sales. This is an indisputable fact. This might change however with Obama’s recent executive actions. Voter fraud is like next to nothing in the USA. They’ve done studies and found it’s minuscule.

          • Kivaari

            REALLY? No kidding. that’s been the law almost everywhere in the US except for the Nazi states. Private sales are not the business of the government. No thief or drugstore robber is going to do the paperwork when he loans or sells his stolen gun. In WA, they instituted this law, and the sheriff’s are laughing at the concept. The people have ignored the new law. Just this week the Spokane County Sheriff went on TV to tell the people that Obama is full’ocrap. That he and other sheriff and police chiefs are bothering to do any background checks. Like usual, after Obama went on TV with his fake tears, gun sales went up and applications for concealed weapons went up. Hopefully no state will require a concealed pistol permit, Well the Nazi states will. Like in NY state when the new registration-confiscation law passed, few registered their rifles. It is not the governments place to block otherwise legal sales. All universal background checks do is harass honest people. None of the bad guys will comply with such a stupid law.

          • Aric Forse

            But if we can only prevent one voter fraud id requirements are worth it, look at how fraud could have changed floria in 2000. It was that close. Thats o’s theory at least.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Private sales are normally between friends and family members. Most guns used to commit crimes are obtained illegally already and these executive actions will do nothing to curb that. Even Obamao has admitted that they will have minimal effect on crime other than to make a bunch of people into criminals or cause them to have to pay a gun dealer to handle the paperwork.

            BTW did you know that the US Attorneys refuse to prosecute over 99% of the restricted individuals who fail a background check? Or that in one recent case a straw purchaser who bought a gun illegally for a felon that was later used to murder a pregnant police officer on her last day before taking maternity leave was sentenced to PROBATION. That really sounds like they are getting tough on crime to me. Note MAJOR Sarcasm.

          • MFee

            Ever hear of acorn? Democrat voting fraud over the last 4 election cycles Alone have proven astronomical .. Bussing voters from one state to another. 35000 DEAD PEOPLE in Chicago and Detroit voted democrat, some having died in the 1800’s.
            There is nothing wrong or illegal with private sales.

          • Kivaari

            voting districts where Obama got 100% of the vote. That is either criminal or race based voting. I find it hard to believe the people were 100% behind Obama, even if they were blacks. Not all blacks are simply that stupid.

          • Doug73

            He got 100% of the votes in 59 districts in Philly. However, those districts were literally 100% comprised of Democrats, and totaled fewer than 20,000 votes combined. Or about 3% of the total vote for Philly.

            It’s really not that hard to believe Obama got all the votes in tiny districts where there were literally no registered Republicans. Not a single one.

          • Kivaari

            It’s hard to believe that 100% of the voter were so stupid.

          • Doug73

            I’m sure many of them WERE stupid. I’m equally sure there were probably a few intelligent ones who just voted their conscious.

            I sorta reject the popular present narrative that says “Disagreeing with me politically can ONLY mean you’re stupid.” That thought seems a little low brow and suspect. It’s not a sentiment I generally associate with critical thinking.

          • Kivaari

            I apply it to Obama voters. It seems unlikely that 100% of the voters could support a candidate with such radical views. Certainly in a district that voted that way, did so because of racism on their part. I refuse to believe all black districts don’t have a few conservatives that vote issues and not skin color. It is just wrong to vote based on skin color, but it appears to have happened. As you know the average voter is very uninformed. Offers of “Obama money”, “Obama phones”, “Free health care”, “soft on crimes”, “Release the Gitmo prisoners”, “raising energy costs”, and “out lawing assault weapons” can’t not get universal support. If a district voted 100% Obama, that is most likely corruption at work. It is as if the ballots were already filled in. Or like some districts voting (R) would swap on the screen and all of a sudden become a (D). Democrats are generally not well received in rural areas. That coincides with why people choose to live outside the inner-city districts where group think is a must, and individualism is discouraged.

          • Doug73

            And the other side applies it to Republican voters. With equally suspect “logic”.

            I’m aware the average voter is uninformed. The problem comes when people think it’s only the OTHER guys who are misinformed. For the most part, people are happy to address and point out logical inconsistencies and problems on the other side, while ignoring or even denying those same features on their own side.

            As for these districts that voted 100% for Obama, again, it’s not surprising either in the abstract or the statistical. We’re talking about 20,000 votes, in districts that are heavily black and have zero registered Republicans. Thus the outcome was not in the least bit surprising. It’s easy to yell “fraud”, despite the fact that i.) there were poll observers of both parties at each polling place (none of whom have alleged fraud), and ii.) nobody seems to be able to produce evidence of such fraud.

            If you have some damning evidence no one else seems to have about voting in these districts, by all means contact the FEC. Otherwise, rhetoric and empty allegations are all too easy to propagate.

          • Kivaari

            l find it odd that there are no people out of 20,000 that were not smart enough to vote the other way. Not all blacks are democrats. It tells me that voting skin color is more important than policy voters. I’d say the same thing if a district voted 100% Republican. Republicans use more common sense. If there is an uber-liberal incumbent Republican that has supported the democrat policies, the notorious RINO, Republicans will not support them. Can you see how difficult it is to have all black people voting simply because a person is black. Well, I guess that leads to the conclusion that those black voters were not very intelligent. The few blacks I have worked with in the military and nearby police officers, shows me there are conservative voting blacks. Real men and women working hard and believing in America where you earn what you are worth. If you are a welfare family and you are the fifth generation where everyone in the neighborhood is a cousin I could see where they wouldn’t want to improve their lot in life. Things are great where no matter where you go you me new relatives all sharing the same fathers and mothers.

          • Secundius

            @ MFee.

            Voter Fraud in the 2012 Presidential Election, was just 0.00000013% Nation Wide. On BOTH SIDE’s…

          • Kivaari

            Same in any place on earth. My wife’s classmate had two of her Vancouver kids in prison for gun possession in defense of their drug operation.

          • Kivaari

            I never said that. No one should have to have a permit to carry a gun. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to have an ID. If you are packing, then when the cop has a legitimate reason to ask you about the gun, give them your ID. No one but bad guys want bad people packing guns. we just should not nee a permit, as is the case in 7 states now. You did know that didn’t you? Seven states no longer require a permit to carry concealed. A weird thing is Texas has a new law allowing open carry, but you need a concealed weapons permit to openly carry.

          • Esh325

            I did know that actually, and it’s a horrible idea to have untrained people carrying around firearms.

          • Jacque Mehoff

            did you have any training prior to having sex the first time?
            defending oneself doesnt require training but common sense not some govt saying what is good or bad!

          • AmericanRemnant

            I’m not sure that’s an accurate comparison Jacque since sex is not generally known to be a potentially lethal activity. And given ones circumstances, training may not be involved but hands on instruction may be part of the learning process. Yes, the gov’t should reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.

          • Aric Forse

            Have sex with someone you meet on craigalist, bigger chance it will be fatal than a firearm, stds are skyrocketing

          • AmericanRemnant

            Is that what pop cultural has virgins doing now, man times sure have changed.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            More people die of AIDS than gunshots.

            See my post about untrained people and the internet.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            More people die from medical malpractice than die from gun shots other than suicides and gun laws won’t stop suicides since rope is a LOT cheaper than a firearm.

          • AmericanRemnant

            Well, I guess my attempt at humor failed but it was replying to the statement of sex for the first time which implies youth and as screwed up as this country is I doubt there too many virgins that have AIDS, whatever that is, but then I spend most of my time avoiding our uncivilized civilization so…..

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            I was replying to the Esh, but it tagged you. Sorry.

          • Kivaari

            f the people be damned. We do not have majority rule – thanks to our constitution limiting the whims of a stupid majority. If a majority of Americans say you can’t form a church and can’t give anti-anything speeches, you are protected from that majority.
            Because the east coast people hate guns, doesn’t mean they can or should be allowed to outlaw them. But, those states have outlawed them, and no one with standing can force the courts to challenge the laws. To do so, usually means you have to volunteer to become a felon. We are not willing to be a felon, loosing our gun rights, not knowing if and when the court will hear the case, or simply pass on it.

          • survivor50

            That’s the best damned analogy I’ve ever heard!
            A favorite quote I’ve heard…”I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.”

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            It’s a horrible people to allow nonprofessionals on the internet, yet here you are.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Fine. How about requiring people to pass a course on US history and civics prior to being allowed to vote? Voting can be much more dangerous than owning a firearm.

          • Kivaari

            Almost none of the people could pass after they completed high school. Watch Watter’s World, and it is heartbreaking to see how dumb America is.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Yes, I know. Something like 70% of the college freshmen at one IVY league college couldn’t pass the test on US government and history required to become a naturalized citizen.

          • Kivaari

            We should require such a test to graduate grade school. We should use such a test to even apply to a college. We have the government these ignorant people elect, and no matter how we try, we cannot educate them. When we use facts on any issue, they simply resort to lies and distortions while calling all kinds of names.
            I need to buy a copy of James Wesley Rawles newest post-collapse novel. It stirs the blood and gets me into mode to buy another rifle and pistol and enough ammo to sink a good sized ship.

          • Doug73

            I’ve Googled that anecdote with every possible combination of keywords I could think of, and haven’t found a single thing about it.

            Can you please reference where you got that information? To be honest, it sounds like the type of thing one might read in a chain email. And in a conversation where we’re talking about how uninformed or misinformed people are (and pointing fingers in the process), it would be valuable if you could show that you haven’t been easily duped yourself.

          • Esh325

            Harvard students couldn’t even pass those tests actually. They were made to disenfranchise blacks. I can’t kill somebody by going to a voting booth can I?

          • Lt_Scrounge

            The tests that they banned because they kept ILLITERATE people (mostly blacks) were READING tests. The Harvard students weren’t able to pass the US citizenship test. BTW YES you can kill lots of people by voting while ignorant of history and their positions. Look at what happened when they gave Jimmah Cahtah or Obamao the White House with House majorities and Super Majorities in the Senate.

            How stupid does someone have to be to want to allow people with NO DAMN CLUE about what is going on to vote for the people who are going to be running the country? Watch the movie “Idiocracy” for a look at the end result.

          • Esh325
          • Lt_Scrounge

            And just think how many of those same Harvard grads are now working in Government. Doesn’t that just make you feel how brilliant they must be to be unable to pass a test needed to elect them?

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Voter ID has been ruled constitutional repeatedly. Effectively no one is without ID in this society, even homeless people.

            And that is not the discussion here.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            It’s not possible to legally buy a gun in DC because there are no licensed dealers in the city. Residents of DC have to try and buy a firearm in Virginia if they want to buy it legally.

            BTW I would guess that you haven’t tried to buy a gun from a dealer in almost 50 years. You’ve had to produce ID to buy a gun from a dealer since at least 1968.

            Why is it that those who want to make it harder to exercise your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, want to make it easier to commit voter fraud? Like the poll worker who admitted to voting 6 times for Obamao in 2012. Don’t worry though, she had her felony conviction downgraded to a misdemeanor courtesy of one of George Soros’ funded front groups so she’ll be manning a polling station in November for whichever PoS the Dems put up.

          • Kivaari

            Before that we had to write the drivers license information in the log book. Handguns in Washington state were also required to have a state form sent in to the police and a waiting period of 5 working days.
            We could deliver handguns to cops with out a wait, but the form was completed.
            It was a little easier in my high school days, I could take the state forms home, my mom would fill it out, and I could pickup the gun. Times have changed, but they haven’t improved.

          • Jesse#1

            Please note that the ‘courts’ do not change the constitution’s meaning, they can rule on one case at a time but the constitution remains.

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Just remember one thing. The French Resistance managed to do a LOT of damage with nothing but single shot 45s Liberator pistols during WWII. If you only get one shot, you just have to make it count. Snipers tend to use bolt action rifles.

          • iksnilol

            Uh, there’s no reports of the Liberator pistols being used. They were more a psychological weapon than anything.

          • Basil Fotherington-Thomas

            Our rights come from God – not government. Even the second amendment is just a reminder to the politicians of what they MUSTN’T do.
            .
            Politicians shouldn’t be able to ban certain kinds of weapons for political reasons – even if the SCOTUS says they can.

          • Esh325

            You’re right Basil. Jesus was riding a dinosaur while duel wielding assault rifles against the Romans.

          • Secundius

            @ Basil Fotherington-Thomas.

            What do you mean “God”, Divine Right’s can ONLY be Given by a Deity or a Sovereign. Found Father’s, were NEITHER Deity or Sovereign…

          • John Gregory

            Oh, so wrong. The Court decisions that you point out are so unConstitutional that the judges involved should have their bodies dug up and shot for treason. The men who were involved in the writing and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stated in no uncertain terms that the Constitution REQUIRES that every weapon available to the soldier must be not only available, but possessed by Private Citizens. Tench Coxe went so far as to say that “Their swords, AND EVERY TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American.” (Fed Papers #’s 29 and 46. Writings of EVERY Founder and several Anti-Federalists) ALL who willfully resist ANY adult Americans’ RIGHT to Keep and Bear MILITARY GRADE Arms are (James Madison, Federalist #46) TRAITORS!!! My, my, that’s a Capital Offense!!!

          • Esh325

            Is that in the Constitution or any current American law?

          • Lt_Scrounge

            Other than US v. Miller, please site which decisions allowed the government to ban any form of weapon? US v. Miller stated that the government could regulate those weapons not normally associated with militia use due to the fact that they were not in general usage by the military. That was the decision that confirmed the National Firearms Act of 1934 which regulates fully automatics, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors as well as “destructive devices”. Now of course the M4 with a suppressor as used by the Navy SEALS and other special operations forces are short barreled, selective fire and usually suppressed so if the government were to abide by the actual precedent set by US v. Miller, the government would have to eliminate the regulations on those three classes of NFA weapons or be in violation of the Constitution. There is a case in the courts now to lift the ban on the production of new (the ban on production and importation went into effect May1, 1986) selective fire weapons.

          • Hensley Beuron Garlington

            AMEN! That’s the bottom line right there!

          • Eric Blatter

            “None of them should be unlawful to own.”

            That’s right “None of them should be unlawful to own.” You can’t legislate against a thing. Historically speaking it has always been impossible.

          • Kivaari

            I think I wrote that.

          • Eric Blatter

            Which means you can’t understand common English. What you said was that it shouldn’t be illegal to own any firearm. “None” meaning not any, “Should be” as in your opinion anyone can have one, “Unlawful to own” as in there should be no law prohibiting them. You’re being unable to understand what you said points to the problem. Right?

          • Eric Blatter

            I misperceived your intent. My apologies.

          • Kivaari

            I sure didn’t know what you were writing.

        • Aric Forse

          Love my vz, better than ak any day

    • dltaylor51

      With the cheese eating surrender monkey’s who are seated firmly in Quebec getting this gun in Canada is not going to happen,they are our version of liberal left wing of the democrat party and those people pee their panties at the thought of a gun like this.

  • tony

    Thank you for sharing, best post on TFB in 2016!!!!!!

  • Martin t√∂refeldt

    The reason for the ban was the 1989 massacre of chinese students in china. By the hands of the chinese army.
    So the blame lies with the chinese goverment.
    In short no massacre = no ban.

    • Martin t√∂refeldt

      Also sorry if the tone became a bit rude.
      But things like these makes my blood boil.

      • Andy Fu

        You blood is boiling for the wrong reasons.
        Chinese weapon ban happened during 1994. In fact the 1989 Tienanmen incidence didn’t have any effect on Sino-America weapon trade.

        • KestrelBike

          Not to mention, why just ban a weapon while letting every other kind of product rolling off state-run assembly lines avoid coming under the same scrutiny?

        • gunsandrockets

          You are half wrong. The first import ban was in 1989. But that import ban had nothing to do with Tiananmen Square massacre, in fact Bush had a disgracefully weak reaction to the massacre.

          • Martin t√∂refeldt

            Please everyone check the dates.
            The massacre took place on the 4 of june 1989.
            And executive order nr 12680 was signed by bush on july the 5 1989.
            One month after the massacre.

          • gunsandrockets

            I guess I need to repeat myself

            Excerpt from NYT…

            In the Presidential campaign last year Mr. Bush, a hunter and longtime member of the N.R.A., opposed to any bans on assault weapons. But a public outcry after a drifter armed with an AK-47 killed five schoolchildren in Stockton, Calif., in January helped convince others in the Administration that some limits were needed.

            At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of national drug control policy, the Administration suspended imports of certain types of semiautomatic assault rifles in March. The President expanded that temporary ban as part of a broader anticrime program that he announced in April, and said he would make it permanent for imported weapons that did not have a legitimate sporting use.

            end excerpt.

            Did you notice that date? March? That was when the import ban was first introduced by Bush. All that happened in July was a Bush order making the ban permanent.

        • Kivaari

          It was GHWB that did it to us and China.

      • Martin t√∂refeldt

        A good critic can admit when hes made a misstake and so i wish to with draw some of my previos comments.
        How ever as some of you have pointed out its hard to belive thqt the way that the chinese have acted has played a part in the politicans decision makings (for ecemple Norinco trying to sell heavy weaponry to street gangs).

        • Martin t√∂refeldt

          Sorry for the spelling i dont get along with the keybord on my smart phone.

    • Raven

      No, the reason for the ban is because Norinco were caught trying to sell serious weaponry (I’m talking RPGs and armor) to gangs in the ’90s.

      • gunsandrockets

        Not true. The ban was because the Stockton Schoolyard murderer used a rifle imported from China.

        • tts

          There have been multiple bans. The 1 you’re talking about was the first and was for assault weapons. There was another more thorough ban on them after they got busted selling to agents impersonating drug dealers. They sold 2,000 AK’s plus grenades and other goodies to the agents plus offered other stuff like full on SAM’s or MANPADS of some sort in the early 90’s.

          Google:

          ANATOMY OF A STING

          By
          MICHAEL S. SERRILL
          Sunday, June 24, 2001

          Not linking it directly since it gets tied up waiting for moderation.

          The money quotes if you don’t want to google:
          “Ku then told the agent to fax his weapons wish list to Ku’s secretary, using code words: “apples” for automatic weapons; “Alpha Kings” for AK-47s; “poppers” for grenades. Later a Florida ATF agent was introduced to Ku as an arms dealer interested in machine guns. Eventually the undercover team negotiated an order for 2,000 AK-47s. They paid Ku and his associates $700,000 in cash and wire transfers to Beijing and Hong Kong bank accounts.

          Ku made clear that he was acting as a middleman for Chinese arms dealers, including Robert Ma, head of U.S. sales for Poly Technologies, and Richard Chen, U.S. representative for Norinco. It was Ma, according to last week’s complaint, who arranged for shipment of the rifles. They arrived in San Francisco aboard a Chinese freighter on March 18.

          Once the transaction was completed, according to court papers, Ku reported that his contacts at Norinco were eager to continue. Customs agents say Ku offered a variety of larger arms, including surface-to-air missiles that he boasted “could take out a 747.”

    • whodywei

      Bush Administration declared a permanent ban on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles in 1989, and technically speaking, there was no massacre.

      • Martin t√∂refeldt

        Then what was it if not an massacre?

        • whodywei

          It was more like a self defense act, the troops were attacked by mobs with metal bars and rocks, and the mobs were repeatedly warned by the soldiers.

    • Kivaari

      GHW Bush screwed us. I’ve never forgiven him.

    • gunsandrockets

      Sorry you are wrong, the Bush import ban had nothing to do with the June 4 Tiananmen Square massacre. In fact the import ban was in place for months before June and had everything to do with domestic gun control.

      Excerpt from NYT…

      In the Presidential campaign last year Mr. Bush, a hunter and longtime member of the N.R.A., opposed to any bans on assault weapons. But a public outcry after a drifter armed with an AK-47 killed five schoolchildren in Stockton, Calif., in January helped convince others in the Administration that some limits were needed.

      At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of national drug control policy, the Administration suspended imports of certain types of semiautomatic assault rifles in March. The President expanded that temporary ban as part of a broader anticrime program that he announced in April, and said he would make it permanent for imported weapons that did not have a legitimate sporting use.

    • The 1989 EO did not target China specifically: All foreign made “non-sporting” rifles were effected. The excuse was that it was an attempt to cut down on crime. However, people suspect the American gun lobby suggested the EO in order to cut down on competition.

  • Esh325

    My understanding is that the reason the Chinese came up with the Type 81 was that they wanted an an indigenous rifle that had improvements over the AK, namely in accuracy The Chinese still use it, mainly their second line troops. It’s certainly an interesting rifle design and probably works well. Although I really don’t see the point of it with the AK around. An AK-74 or AK in 5.56×45 is certainly accurate enough and low recoiling.

  • andrey kireev

    There’s nothing wrong with AK sights Alex… quit acting like a baby

    • Kivaari

      AK sights are one of the weakest features of Soviet-Chinese rifles.

      • Rock or Something

        Agree. Peep sights take a little more training and practice to use, but are better for more accurate shooting.

        On the other hand, I think the weakest feature of the M16/AR15 rifles series is the magazine, something the AK does not seem to suffer from.

        • ostiariusalpha

          The AKM magazine came with an anti-tilt follower right from the get go; it also has a slightly more straight in feed angle. The AR-15/M16 aluminum mags went through the black followers, which had no anti-tilt features; then the green followers, which had some minimal anti-tilt on just one side; till we get to the tan followers, which are actually pretty reliable. The AK mags are a bit more vulnerable to grime getting inside due to the large clearances around the magwell; any magazine that gets too much grit in it will create feeding issues. Other than that, it comes down to a trade-off between the AK steel mag’s durability and the AR aluminum mags lightness and disposibility.

          • Kivaari

            One aspect of the original 20 round M16 magazines, is they were pretty reliable. The only GI magazines I had to down load were .30 Carbine, 30 rounders.

          • jcitizen

            We had double feed and all kinds of other trouble with the GI magazines in our unit. I finally discovered all the magazines made in Parsons Kansas were OK, so I turned all the other ones in to MATES as rejects. We had almost zero problems with the properly made 20 rounders. We never tested our 30 round mags, and we left them in the plastic sleeves for deployment.

          • Kivaari

            Every 30 round aluminum magazine I use NOW have the Magpul no-tilt followers. Even before using those I rarely saw any issues with 20 or 30 round issue magazines. Now I do come from the old school, in that I under-load my 30 round mags to 25 rounds. Not that it needs t, it’s just me. Just like I did with my Glock 17 duty magazines. I always loaded them with 15 rounds. I figure if anything takes me to a locked back pistol or rifle I am in deep doo.
            Just having 15 rounds in the pistol was a step up from having 6 in a revolver and 12 more on the belt. Two cops from a neighboring department got into a shootout with two cop killers, they had just killed the cop a few minutes earlier. At the end of a dead end road the shooting began. The cops emptied their revolvers, dropping many rounds to the ground and down to the last 12 00buck when one suspect charged them. He had done a round count, knowing the cops were having issues. One shot left in the shotgun fired with the butt on the ground allowed one 00buck pellet to hit the thug in the forehead. The department resisted issuing speed loaders. It took several years and a pit bull attack in a city park to get the chief to allow speed loaders. Then in short time they adopted Glock 17s. Administrators kill more cops than bad guys, or so it seems.

          • jcitizen

            I’m an old fart, this was years before MagPull existed. On shootouts, I can definitely empathize. I used to beat the new guy with the Browning Hi-Power and his high-cap mags on the Utah course – that used to chap his butt – especially since I sold him the Browning! HA! I got pretty good in speed loading revolvers, but I now only believe in using them as a home defense gun, if it is sitting around for a long while, with little maintenance. I’m definitely a believer in high-capacity semi-auto pistols, and short loading them or whatever it takes to make them shoot first time and every time in any situation. Of course training, leadership, and SOP cannot be ignored in any organization as well.

        • Kivaari

          M16 magazines, like the standard issue magazine works just fine. When some of the most popular plastic magazines are put through the testing many fail. Even the “best” seem to have only 2/3 rds the life of a mil-spec aluminum. I believe that is on TFB.

    • “Nothing wrong”

      I’d say that’s pretty strong. AK sights are akin to an underachieving student who’s happy with getting C’s because they’re ‘good enough’ despite being capable of so much more. The AK’s sights are probably the biggest problem with the rifle.

      “Good enough” brings down the quality of a rifle that’s otherwise really quite excellent.

      • andrey kireev

        I do well with my leaf sights thank you very much, I can keep it under 3 MOA with Tula / wolf easily… don’t blame the rifle, blame yourself

        • I cut my SKS groups in half at 100m with junky ammo by throwing a pair of tech sights on the rifle.

          You know, upgrading from ‘good enough’ like I mentioned above. I have seven rifles in 7.62×39 with AK leaf sights. I do well with them too, but that doesn’t make them good sights.

          • Kivaari

            The 7.62x39mm round is very accurate. When distances get over 200m, it becomes much less powerful and harder to hit with. But it is one of the best close range guns around. When I had my gun store I also collected SKS carbines. I tried to get as many variants as I could. In the end it was around 25 of those. My friends have the best gun collection I ever owned.

      • phuzz

        Is the rifle accurate enough for it to make much of a difference?

      • Kivaari

        I’d agree. I no longer have AKs because I can’t use the sights. I no longer have a collection of WW1-2 military rifles because if I can’t shoot them well, I need to get a rifle I can shoot well. Aperture sights. Now I can’t find a good M1 rifle or M1 carbine or even a nice 03A3. Well, none that I can afford, it it gets in the way of buying an AR. The ARs simplify my shooting. I don’t need other calibers, and I always over-buy ammo and accessories. At my advanced age and decreasing health tells me to slow down. Shoot what is fun. Leave enough guns and gear to my daughter that when I drop they have more than enough should a crush come.

    • tony

      standard rifleman qualification with a Chinese Type 56 (AK clone) in PLA is done at 100m. The sights are seriously inadequate.

      • Esh325

        I’m not really sure if that’s because of the sights, or it’s just because that’s their training to qualify at that range. Certainly, you can shoot an AK out farther than 100m and hit man sized targets, I know i’ve done it.

    • Esh325

      The Russians must think otherwise because all the potential replacements for the AK-74 had diopter sights like the AN-94,AK-12, and A545. While the AK sights are not the worst in the world, they are lacking. But I suppose it doesn’t really matter as much today because any soldier going into serious combat has optics these days and only uses their iron sights as a backup. Some M4 users in combat don’t even run any backup sights.

      • Kivaari

        So out guys don’t use BUIS. Really? Most of the M4s have a fixed front sight, and a folding rear as standard equipment. Some don’t use them just like some don’t follow the other rules in life.

        • Esh325

          Well in the American military mostly the special forces who have access to free float rails.

          • mig1nc

            Pat Rogers recently wrote a good blog post on why it makes sense to not have irons when you have a free float rail and something like a PEQ-15.

          • Kivaari

            That’s proof of one soldier, from what army?

        • iksnilol

          Never understood why no folding front sight for the AR.

          I mean, it’s the front sight that is in the way when using a red dot.

          • Esh325

            There are plenty folding front sights for AR’s that have free float handguards.

          • iksnilol

            I was thinking about gas block with folding front sight. Those are a bit more uncommon, and aren’t standard issue from what I know.

          • Esh325

            That’s true. There are AR’s that aren’t free floating that don’t have the typical fixed M4 front sight and have folding one, but like you said they aren’t very common.

          • Uniform223

            “it’s the front sight that is in the way when using a red dot.”

            Not true. The red dot or what ever form of optic you are using actually “covers” the front sight post. When I was in my iron sights and optics were both zeroed to 300m. From personal experience looking through the M68 CCO (Aimpoint Comp M2), the red dot coalesced with the front sight post. So having an M16 or M4 with a traditional fixed front sight post and a red dot is actually no issue.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but it is in front thereby reducing what you can see under the dot.

          • Uniform223

            if the front sight and the red dot coalesce than it doesn’t matter. Besides you’re focusing on the dot (point of aim or impact depending on your zero and engagement range) so what is under the red dot again, doesn’t really matter.

          • iksnilol

            I like seeing what is under my point of aim. For holdovers and such.

          • Uniform223

            at that point you’re talking about more magnified optics for longer distances so the whole notion about a fixed front sight post obscuring the bottom part of the sight picture for red dots becomes moot. Also I’ve never heard soldiers or marines complaining about the front sight post when using an ACOG.

          • iksnilol

            No, was talking about non-magnified red dots. I like cowitness, but I like the sights folded away when using the red dot.

            With high magnification the front post disappears, so is non-relevant.

          • Rock or Something

            It’s probable because it’s just easier for the U.S. Military to keep the standard front side posts for the majority of rifles. There are still quite a few units that are using iron sights.

            When engaging your target, the Army trained us to bring the sights (both iron and optics) generally up from below. So not seeing “under the dot” is not really a big issue, although I admit it couldn’t hurt otherwise.

          • Kivaari

            Less chance of it falling off, or getting bent or stolen.

          • Kivaari

            The M4 is issued with a fixed front sight and a folding rear. People do remove them to make room for other sights. Not many conventional soldiers have all the nice gear and free floating barrels.

    • Uniform223

      Before deployment I went through a weapons familiarization course. Of course there were AKs. For most if not all US Military service members, we are very used to the front peep sights found on our M16/M4.

      The AK sight isn’t bad perse but if you’re not used to it, you just wont prefer it is all. Perhaps that what he means.

    • I would say they are dated. Even the Finnish and the Israelis thought so when they took the platform and placed the rear sight on the dustcover and changed it to a peep style.

      • iksnilol

        Heard something about Finnish conscripts complaining about the peep sight getting filled with snow or something.

        A problem I have also experienced with my peep sights of choice (dust gets in them).

        • Martin t√∂refeldt

          We had an problem with the sights in sweden when we tried the galil.
          The problem was that the sight was mounted on the dust cover and during troop trials it was found that during cleaning our dust cover could be confused with an other rifles dust cover along with the sight mounted on it.
          If that happens then the sight adjustments goes down the drain.

          • Kivaari

            That’s is sloppy soldiering. Don’t do that and there is no issue. Kid’s we have to take care of our gear, even if the other kid doesn’t.

        • Kivaari

          Valmet and Galil rear apertures are too small. I opened them up a tiny amount. In dark timber or bad weather they would go black. The built in night sights allowed a crude short range set up. Without nigh vision devices, the night time ranges were small. If you notice the M16A2 corrected that issue on the M16A1. That’s when we got a factory installed ghost ring. The army did listen to the troops regarding aperture sizes.

      • jcitizen

        The Valmet was the only AK variant I had, that could hit anything past 100 meters anyway. So those sights actually worked well for me. It even had a flip up(over) night sights with tritium inserts, in both sights. I never needed night vision scopes with those awesome peepers! Actually the rear sight was converted to a notch when flipped over for night use. Peep sights always made me nervous in the dark – I never knew if my sight picture was correct, on a really black night.

        • iksnilol

          yeah… I’ll chalk that up to user error.

      • Kivaari

        My first 7.62×39 was a Valmet M62S. It is the one rifle I have the deepest regrets about selling. Then the Galils in both calibers were great. Sights make the difference. The Finn and Israeli rifles are the best AKs I have ever used. When Mitchell Arms sold new Yugo AKs they were the best open sight models around. Very heavy, very accurate, very well finished. Damn, I should have kept them all.

  • mishaCB

    That device on the gas block is an air regulator similar to a FAL, it can be closed to fire grenades, restrict the amount of gas passing thru to give better accuracy or allow more gas to drive the system to ensure reliability in harsh condition.

    Chicom had already decided to adapt 5.8mm rounds when Type 81 is developed. They were designed as decent replacements for Type 56 AKs, SKS and RPDs before new 5.8mm family are ready to use. (China was in a war with Vietnam, I think PLA was not satisfied with their current weapon setting).

  • Texas-Roll-Over

    Interesting. A sheet metal receiver, hammer fired, short stroke gas piston rifle. I would say that this has a lot of VZ58 in the rifle as well. It actually resembles and functions identical to a VZ58 minus the hammer fired trigger mechanism.

    • Gruul

      Vz58 has a milled received, tilting bolt, and striker fired. Other than being short stroke operated and using 7.62, they aren’t alike at all.

  • gunsandrockets

    Nice video. I never would have guessed the Chinese tried importing a semi-auto version of the Type 81 to the United States.

  • Lance

    Well the Type-81 was developed from lessons learned from the first Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979 Where Soviet AKMs and left over M-16s (left over from ARVN) in Vietnamese used where out shooting Type 56 carbines and rifle the PLA used. Still in use with 2nd line units in the PLA today as well as Typ 56s in use with Chinese militia and auxiliary units as well. Overall this was not the only victim of the 89 import ban as well. A Chinese AKS-74 copy was also in the works in the 89 shot show, as well as a Norinco AR-15A1 copy the CQ was offered. As you now the SKS styled AK was the most missed.

    Wish Century would make a US made Type 56 copy.

  • Don Ward

    An interesting video and I go to the comments section to learn more about the history of this rifle and I get treated to knuckledraggers derping about “Dem socialists” and politics.

    Thanks Obama!

  • MPWS

    Thank you for showing this unique piece. It is indeed one well thought-out design; one might even see its resemblance to SIG550. My position would be that this is an AK taken one step further. Yes, this was a seminal case study for QZB-03 which is currently in wide-spread service with PLA.

  • UnrepentantLib

    Here’s a thought: How about an American company copying that rifle and putting it on the market (but making just enough minor tweaks to plausibly say they’re not copying it). Looks like a pretty decent weapon. I hope you can get it shooting and report on how it does.

  • Steve_7

    There were two semi-automatic L85A1s made by Royal Ordnance for the 1989 SHOT show, I think ATF still has one in their reference collection, the other is in private hands. Has a larger diameter pin in the TMH to hold the trigger pack in.

  • Wolfgar

    Great video, thanks

  • Esh325

    It’s not bs. The USA has the highest amount of firearms deaths and injuries in the developed world. Comparing third world countries at war isn’t really fair. We have to compare apples and apples here.

    • jcitizen

      You have to have a reason to take away someone’s civil rights. The crime rate is not the reason, because the murder rate is too low – you don’t take away rights because somebody abused them. If that were OK we all would have no rights at all. There is no intellectual reason AT ALL for that.

      Doctors kill more people every year from malpractice, and hospital deaths from medical errors at 195,000 per year in the USA.

      source: – results of study by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003

      • Esh325

        I didn’t just say murders, I said deaths and injuries. What do doctors have to do with gun deaths?

        • jcitizen

          Murder is the only thing that applies, we are talking about rights here, only by committing a crime can you lose your rights, at least until you pay your dues to society. Doctors kill – and malpractice is a crime, as far as I’m concerned. We need to ban more doctors by your logic.

          • Esh325

            Why is it the only thing that applies when guns kill and injure people with murderous intent involved?

          • milesfortis

            You’ll save time and effort by realizing that Esh isn’t after anything other than spreading innuendo and conflation.
            No rational argument is going to make one difference because that’s not what he’s after. All he is, is an foreign propagandist bent on doing what his masters pay him to do.

          • jcitizen

            Thanks milesfortis; I just like arguing to keep up my debating skills for when it really matters, which right now it doesn’t.

        • milesfortis

          What do law abiding citizens have to do with gun deaths either?
          Your foreign agitation propaganda isn’t working here.
          I wonder why you’re always posting her though. I guess the money you get paid for being a foreign agent must be pretty good, right?

          • Esh325

            I’m just wondering how does a gun end up in criminal hands originally? How does it get released to criminals?

          • milesfortis

            You mean you really don’t know?
            They sprout legs and walk off, you inbred moron!
            Here’s the thing. Just so you’ll understand.
            I’m making it a point to post commentary ridiculing your foreign propaganda at every opportunity I have.
            Go back to your masters and tell them to get you another job. You’re lousy at this one.
            Also, as long as you keep your simpering, mince stepping, foreign trolling agent nose out of our political affairs, since they’re none of your damned business, I’ll think about stopping comparing you to the south end of a north bound horse.
            You want to opine on what you think about certain guns style, attributes, shooting capabilities, fine.
            Otherwise, I’m going to continually point out that your foreign provocations and propaganda make you “politics not firearms.”

          • Esh325

            It’s a foreign provocation when I say something about your gun laws but when somebody on this site complains about another countries gun laws it’s fine and accepted. I’m serious about that question. In the USA, how does a gun get in the hands of a criminal from start to finish. Tell me.

          • milesfortis

            I already told you, you ignoramus, and you are mentally unable to understand such a simple concept.
            Just goes to show the extent of mental aberration in collectivist societies today, no hybrid vigor.
            I sincerely hope you’re prepared for the personal consequences of the islamist invasions. Got your jizyah account set up yet?

          • Esh325

            You didn’t tell me….

          • milesfortis

            Of course I did, you nincompoop.
            It’s that you’re simply unable to recognize truth when doesn’t jibe with your version of reality and slaps you in the face like a 20 pound mackerel.

          • Esh325

            Okay let’s go step by step. (This is rough mind you) So a gun company manufacturers the firearms. The guns are then shipped to a distributor, then shipped to a gun shop or retailer. The guns are then bought by somebody passing a background check. The criminal either pays the person that is able to legally buy the gun to commit a straw purchase, or he steals the gun. Either way, we can see that legal guns are supplying criminals in the USA. The guns aren’t illegally made in shops. They are legally made by manufacturers and then legally released onto the market.

          • milesfortis

            And, again, you display that you lack the ability to discern the difference between truth and falsity in reality. Whether ployful, or actual is of no import.
            Some, a very few, can overcome this and cast away their chains.
            Others are doomed to a lifetime of serving as useful idiots.

          • Esh325

            You should be more worried about being shot when you go out in public next than any supposed Islamic invasion that Fox News has told you about. Your greatest enemies are domestic rather than foreign.

          • milesfortis

            I’m not worried.
            I said you should be since you’re not an American.
            See?
            Your reversion again shows that you’re either mentally deficient, or nothing more than a paid propagandist.
            Either way, wrong headed.

    • jcitizen

      Brazil and Russia are not 3rd world, and they have more murders, what weird kind of science cares what instrument causes the murder? If you have less murders in a country that has more guns, that is the comparison I am making – your logic has run off the rails.

      • Esh325

        They aren’t, but they also aren’t at the same level as the USA is.

  • Secundius

    But then again, the Norinco M305 in 7.61x51Nato (M14S, Clone Copy) is available in Canada for $750.00 USD., but NOT the USA…

  • Doug73

    This is fine, except it still doesn’t jibe with what you wrote. You made reference to THE test the U.S. Government gives for naturalization, and said 70% of kids at an Ivy League school failed it. The link took me to a test given by a conservative organization (ISI, which I’m fairly certain does not administer tests on behalf of the government), and in analyzing their own findings they decalred it astonishing that most college graduates “didn’t accept the Bible as the Word of God.” That’s not really the type of objective finding one expects to see in a neutral study.

    I’m more interested in objective data that doesn’t attempt to politicize the findings.

    Moreover, if you gave ISI’s test to everyone posting in this thread, I honestly believe you’d find a high failure rate here as well. Then the headline would be, “70% of gun owners can’t even pass the test on basic government and civics”.

    Do you have a link that backs up what you originally said? Again, I have searched for it in earnest and can’t find anything claiming exactly what you said.

    • Lt_Scrounge

      What makes you think that the test given varied substantively from the one given by the government? It doesn’t matter whether they give the test for the government if the questions were the same. Your just a liberal semantics nitpicker. The test showed that the average score for students at a number of IVY league (Cornell, Princeton and YALE) schools was 54.2%. That means that if failing was anything below a 70%, the average was 20% below passing. If the average is 20% below a passing score, unless you have a LOT of students getting virtually every question wrong, you can bet that over 70% failed the civics portion of the test. You must be one of the liberals who want to argue your losing point on semantics incessantly until the other party simply gets tired of dealing with you. The bottom line is they don’t have the knowledge needed to make an informed voting decision. I’m all in favor of requiring people to be able to answer the same questions that a person seeking to be naturalized does to be allowed to vote. It will help keep the criminally corrupt and inanely stupid out of office.

      • Doug73

        I apologize for pointing out that the evidence you’ve provided, doesn’t jibe with your own words. Clearly that makes me, what did you call it, a “liberal semantics nitpicker”.

        Words mean things. Chose your words more carefully, and you’ll have provided no nits to pick. Simple enough, right?

        As for the test, I’m not at all surprised many failed it. As I mentioned, if you gave that SAME test to every poster in this thread, I honestly believe the vast majority here would fail it too. I really do. Would be interesting for TFB to administer the test to 20 random, regular posters here. Although I fear the results might actually leave those Ivy League kids looking pretty good in comparison.

        We live in a society where “kardashian” is a household word, and an anti-intellectual liberal clown like Trump can actually become a leading candidate in the major conservative political party.

        I do disagree with the notion that people should be tested before they can vote; a blatantly unconstitutional idea to begin with, as any “Constitutional Originalist” would tell you. And I disagree that such a test would keep the corrupt out of office in any regard, since many corrupt people are actually highly intelligent. (As an interesting aside, the average sociopath has an IQ well above the norm.) Ultimately, we get the government we deserve. Just as it should be. And ironically, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

  • Doug73

    Interestingly, this Arkansas study takes some issue with the ISI study you linked above. They found ISI’s methodology lacking in some regards.

    It’s also interesting that the majority of individuals who did poorly in this Arkansas test were white and self-identified as conservative. I don’t make too much of that, as I suspect you’d find similar results if the corollary was true. But it is interesting in the sense that when such things are discussed in forums like this, it is often in the form of “people who aren’t like me failed this test, but people who are like me didn’t.”

    Ignorance of basic civics is unfortunately a bi-partisan affair. I’m reminded of this whenever someone like the Dixie Chicks or Duck Dynasty guys are criticized by the public, and dolts on each respective side start incorrectly screaming, “Their free speech rights are being violated!”

    • Lt_Scrounge

      My thoughts are that people have the right to say whatever they want as long as they are willing to accept the fall out. The Constitution guarantees that the GOVERNMENT doesn’t violate an individual’s right to speak their mind. It does not guarantee that they won’t have any consequences for doing so. The Dixie Chicks had the right to say what they did, however they should’ve known that doing so would alienate a significant portion of their fans and result in loss of revenue. That was the fans expressing themselves with their wallets. Much like the gun owners of this country have been expressing themselves over the past 8-9 years about the gun control policies of the left. As for the Robertson’s stance on gay marriage, they were not saying anything that would be considered overly offensive to their fan base because most of their fan base are Christians and don’t support gay marriage either. For some reason I just can’t imagine that a large portion of their fan base are gays looking to be married. If you notice, there was greater outrage over the network doing anything than there was over what Phil Robertson said.

      • Doug73

        Your reply here veered a little off-topic from the point it was replying to.

        Nonetheless, yes, “free speech” speaks to government action; not freedom from consequences. A point lost both by fans of the Dixie Chicks and fans of the Duck Dynasty guys.

        As for the Dixie Chicks, they did alienate some fans, but apparently picked up many more. Because after their infamous 2003 British concert, they met with more critical and financial success than they had ever seen before. This culminated in them winning five Grammy Awards in 2007 alone, and today they are the highest grossing female country band of all time. Any hint that their exercise of free speech in 2003 ultimately left them in a worse financial place, is just objectively false. Perhaps that’s why the conservative pundits who tore into them in 2003 have been eerily silent about the Dixie Chicks in recent years. Someone got the last laugh…and it wasn’t the conservative pundits.

        As for the Duck Dynasty guys, yes, the greater outrage was related to the network censuring them. And it was in this realm where I saw many, many DD fans screaming that the network was “violating Robertson’s free speech rights.” Which as you’ve already correctly pointed out is a rather asinine thing to say, since the government does not own the network. Which gets back to the original point: obliviousness to basic civics is most certainly a bi-partisan affair.

  • CanadianShill

    I’d just like to pop in here and say that the 81 is now non-restricted in Canada! It’s a great, wonderful, magical day!!

  • Friend of Tibet

    Now it is confirmed that TYPE 81 is approved in Canada and now it is non-restricted!!!! Hell yeah!!!!