View Poll Results: Would this compromise be acceptable?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. This isnít perfect, but no compromise is.

    12 12.90%
  • No. I donít mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    13 13.98%
  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    61 65.59%
  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    4 4.30%
  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    3 3.23%
Page 71 of 71 FirstFirst ... 2161697071
Results 701 to 705 of 705

Thread: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

  1. #701
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    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?

  2. #702
    Advisor Dammitboy!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Meridian, Mississippi
    Last Seen
    04-13-13 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    343

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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?
    Some apes are more equal...

  3. #703
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    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 by Jerry; 01-31-13 at 10:12 PM.

  4. #704
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    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



  5. #705
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dammitboy! View Post
    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.

Page 71 of 71 FirstFirst ... 2161697071

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •