• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why would you own an assault rifle?

Would you own an assault Rifle? Why?


  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
It's actually a 1986 federal law though. It's illegal to sell any automatics made after 1986, maybe under Fla. law you can purchase pre-1986 with those conditions, I think Nevada is also full-auto friendly iirc.

You can get a federal tax stamp that allows you to own a fully automatic, regardless of date of manufacture, but the cost and bull**** involved is ridiculous from what I hear.
 
You can get a federal tax stamp that allows you to own a fully automatic, regardless of date of manufacture, but the cost and bull**** involved is ridiculous from what I hear.
Are you guys sure about that? Not being difficult here but the Hughes amendment of 1986 as passed stated that ownership and transfer rights of any weapons registered after May 19, 1986 were banned. I know to get the FFLIII you have to have a squeaky clean record, have the tax stamp, and be either registered as a dealer or collector. The whole thing could be simplified but as it stands is BS.
 
You can get a federal tax stamp that allows you to own a fully automatic, regardless of date of manufacture, but the cost and bull**** involved is ridiculous from what I hear.

not true

you can only own REGISTERED automatic weapons and the HUGHES AMENDMENT prohibited any automatic weapon made after May 19, 1986 from being REGISTERED for Class III tax stamps

that is why auto weapons have skyrocketed in cost and its why cops can buy a MP 5 for under 2 grand and if you want one its gonna be 18,000 or more since you are limited to registered weapons or sears pre May 19, 1986

you can get around that by becoming a TITLE II maker or dealer but you will need a POLICE DEPARTMENT WRITTEN REQUEST for you to provide demo weapons to them.

pre may 19,1986 Title II weapons owned by a dealer could be possessed by that dealer with the tax stamp if the dealer gave up his license. IF YOU ARE A DEALER AND YOU cease being a dealer you cannot KEEP any POST may 19,1986 dealer sample weapons.

that is why trade journals like SHOTGUN News will have ads for auto weapons with the following

1) fully transferable (most expensive)

2) Pre May Dealer samples (less expensive)

3) POST MAY 19 dealer samples (cheapest since they are the hardest to sell)
 
not true

you can only own REGISTERED automatic weapons and the HUGHES AMENDMENT prohibited any automatic weapon made after May 19, 1986 from being REGISTERED for Class III tax stamps

that is why auto weapons have skyrocketed in cost and its why cops can buy a MP 5 for under 2 grand and if you want one its gonna be 18,000 or more since you are limited to registered weapons or sears pre May 19, 1986

you can get around that by becoming a TITLE II maker or dealer but you will need a POLICE DEPARTMENT WRITTEN REQUEST for you to provide demo weapons to them.

pre may 19,1986 Title II weapons owned by a dealer could be possessed by that dealer with the tax stamp if the dealer gave up his license. IF YOU ARE A DEALER AND YOU cease being a dealer you cannot KEEP any POST may 19,1986 dealer sample weapons.

that is why trade journals like SHOTGUN News will have ads for auto weapons with the following

1) fully transferable (most expensive)

2) Pre May Dealer samples (less expensive)

3) POST MAY 19 dealer samples (cheapest since they are the hardest to sell)
Thanks TD. I knew a bit of that but not the Title II designation. It was such a disgusting last minute move to sneak that into a firearms protection law. But that's gun banners for you.
 
Thanks TD. I knew a bit of that but not the Title II designation. It was such a disgusting last minute move to sneak that into a firearms protection law. But that's gun banners for you.

there were strong arguments that parliamentary rules were ignored or even outright violated by that move

there are even arguments it didn't really pass-it was done on a voice vote. Former WH counsel told me Reagan signed it because he thought it was going to be struck by the courts-others claim he didn't know it was there
 
there were strong arguments that parliamentary rules were ignored or even outright violated by that move

there are even arguments it didn't really pass-it was done on a voice vote. Former WH counsel told me Reagan signed it because he thought it was going to be struck by the courts-others claim he didn't know it was there
I am thinking they snuck it into a final bill without giving the heads up. I know there was little said about it by the Reagan administration and I would think that he would have vetoed that bill based on the Hughes amendment. Then again Dutch may have trusted the court, never heard that theory.
 
I am still waiting for Catawba-who has been on this thread through hundreds of posts-to tell us what sort of laws he thinks will solve the problems that bother him so much

The same laws that the other wealthy nations have that make their gun deaths a fraction of ours, failing that, not allowing the purchase of weapons without waiting periods and extensive background checks into mental instability, and criminal background.

Have each state do what we did in Virginia following the Va Tech shootings, "close legal loopholes that had previously allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
 
Last edited:
The same laws that the other wealthy nations have that make their gun deaths a fraction of ours, failing that, not allowing the purchase of weapons without waiting periods and extensive background checks into mental instability, and criminal background.

Have each state do what we did in Virginia following the Va Tech shootings, "close legal loopholes that had previously allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)."

Virginia Tech massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so what you are telling us is you want to hassle honest people while driving the rate of violent crime sky high

its you lefties who keep mental health records out of the NICS

waiting periods do nothing but hassle honest people and have no proven connection to increased public safety

your desires are rejected for being stupid and contrary to empirical evidence
 
It's actually a 1986 federal law though. It's illegal to sell any automatics made after 1986, maybe under Fla. law you can purchase pre-1986 with those conditions, I think Nevada is also full-auto friendly iirc.

No. I think you are correct about new purchases.
 
so what you are telling us is you want to hassle honest people while driving the rate of violent crime sky high

its you lefties who keep mental health records out of the NICS

waiting periods do nothing but hassle honest people and have no proven connection to increased public safety

your desires are rejected for being stupid and contrary to empirical evidence

what people like catawba seem incapable of comprehending is that criminals will not obey gun laws anymore than they obey laws regarding robbery, murder, etc, etc, etc.

all more gun laws will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

wake up: guns are not the problem, scumbag people are the problem.
 
what people like catawba seem incapable of comprehending is that criminals will not obey gun laws anymore than they obey laws regarding robbery, murder, etc, etc, etc.

all more gun laws will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

wake up: guns are not the problem, scumbag people are the problem.

the problem is --telling people like Catawba that gun control schemes don't control crime is worthless

controlling CRIME is not what motivates them

Its controlling and hassling honest gun owners



why do you think "intelligent" politicians continue to spew discredited idiocy over and over?

because they cannot come out and tell us why they really want waiting periods, magazine limits etc
 
the problem is --telling people like Catawba that gun control schemes don't control crime is worthless

controlling CRIME is not what motivates them

Its controlling and hassling honest gun owners



why do you think "intelligent" politicians continue to spew discredited idiocy over and over?

because they cannot come out and tell us why they really want waiting periods, magazine limits etc

exactly :thumbs:
 
TD, you are the man when it comes to weapons. I ever decide to by another gun you will be the person I come to for advice:)
 
Back
Top Bottom