• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?


  • Total voters
    75
Incorrect again. If you have the proper paperwork, you can own any modern machine gun.
That would require something more than a class-3 stamp, then. What kind of paperwork?
 
That would require something more than a class-3 stamp, then. What kind of paperwork?

FFL paperwork. If you don't know what is required or what is currently legal (regardless of how we view the law or how you feel) perhaps you should not be making claims out of ignorance?
 
FFL paperwork.
With an FFL, the business owns the machine gun, not you.

The right to have an abortion is conditional upon you owning a clinic, is what you're saying.
The right to practice a religion is conditional upon you operating a church, is what you're saying.
The right to speak your mind is conditional upon you owning a media outlet, is what you're saying.
The right to petition the government and redress grievances is conditional upon you operating a political organisation, is what you're saying.

What a steaming pile, your argument is.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

...Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms(as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added). Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

...

The individual right to personally own a modern machine gun is being infringed.
 
Last edited:
The only way a non LE citizen can own a post 1986 machine gun is to be a class three dealer with a police department request letter. The other way is to be a Title II manufacturer with government contracts
 
No they didn't. You can still legally own machine guns.

New ones are banned. I specifically said NEW, and I now put it in all caps for those who fail to read. The pre-86 ban ones still out there have skyrocketed in price. If you want a fully automatic AK-47 or similar rifle, be prepared to pay around 20K and go through a thorough background check with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Most people cannot afford those rifles. They are not being used in crimes. The criminals who want fully automatic weapons buy them much more cheaply on the black market.

But you cannot buy a NEW assault rifle. The sale of NEW ones to the public is banned.
 
Back
Top Bottom