[QUOTE=GunFox;24107507]
The first engagement of the revolutionary was was because the brits were trying to destroy a weapon stockpile. That weapon stockpile included CANNONS. The second amendment didn't provide any stipulations. There was no "but" or "except" included that explained what weapons were and were not allowed.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [/QUOTE]
Well would I have the right to bear nuclear arms then? Y'all know, just something for target practice.
The constitution was written when firearms were crappy muskets and whatnot, so the line needs to be drawn somewhere (imho).
[editline]05:36PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24111602]
Controlled fucking bursts.
Do you realize how accurate a medium/heavy machine gun is?[/QUOTE]
It sure is accurate, I mostly meant regular arms (SMGs/etc) that you shoot while standing.
[QUOTE=evilking1;24111630]Well would I have the right to bear nuclear arms then? Y'all know, just something for target practice.
[/QUOTE]
Completely unrealistic statement that does nothing for your argument.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;24111690]Completely unrealistic statement that does nothing for your argument.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I had some logical fallacy / etc crap argument bullshit there, but you might get my point?
Where the line should be drawn on what arms can a civilian bear if you were there to decide the new constitution then?
No, I do not get your point.
Because a nuclear weapon and an automatic firearm are two completely different things.
My line would be drawn at explosive ordinance. Your rocket launchers. Your grenade launchers. ETC. ETC.
Automatic firearms have no business being banned.
[QUOTE=evilking1;24111630]Well would I have the right to bear nuclear arms then? Y'all know, just something for target practice.
The constitution was written when firearms were crappy muskets and whatnot, so the line needs to be drawn somewhere (imho).[/QUOTE]
WMDs are irrelevant of the purpose of the second amendment, the government would never nuke it's own soil against it's own citizens.
What's the exact difference between a Springfield musket and an AR-15 that makes the AR-15 need to be banned?
[QUOTE]It sure is accurate, I mostly meant regular arms (SMGs/etc) that you shoot while standing.[/QUOTE]
You really underestimate how effective those are.
[editline]11:46AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilking1;24111757]Where the line should be drawn on what arms can a civilian bear if you were there to decide the new constitution then?[/QUOTE]
Somewhere along the lines of heavy artillery and tanks.
I want one of these :D
[IMG]http://a.imageshack.us/img231/3058/40mmbeehiveround.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24110890]A class 3 license != Regular gun license.[/QUOTE]
You just go on and on and on about things you don't understand, don't you?
Here let me break it down for you.
There are three types of "Machine gun" (legal term) in the US, they go as follows:
[U]Transferable[/U] - These are automatics made [I]and registered[/I] prier to May, 1986. Any United States citizen over 21 with a clean record can own one after they pay a $200 tax stamp and get the firearm registered under their name. This process takes around 4 months. No new transferable automatics can be built for civilian ownership. The $200 tax stamp is [B]NOT A LICENSE[/B], it is exactly as the name implies, a tax stamp, it's a tax on automatics and it must be paid every time the weapon changes hands and for every automatic you buy. The weapon must also go through a class 3 dealer before it gets to you and the local sheriff must sign off on it.
[U]Pre-86 Dealer Sample[/U] - These are weapons that were made before May, 1986 but were not registered until after the ban on newly made automatics. Only those with a Class 3 DEALER'S license or an FFL07 Builder's License may own these. The dealer may keep these weapons after his license has expired but if he were to sell them, they must go to another dealer.
[U]Post-86 Dealer Sample[/U] - These are weapons made and registered [I]after[/I] May, 1986. Only one of each weapon may be personally owned by the Dealer/Builder and they must be either destroyed (receiver deactivated and sold as parts or just flat out torn to pieces) or sold to another dealer before the dealer/builder's license expires.
There, as you can see, you don't need a license to own an automatic, it just depends on the type of firearm.
There are also Destructive Devices, this ranges from anti-tank cannons to M203s to functioning Bazookas and RPG-7s, these are just as easy (and sometimes cheaper) to get as Transferable automatics, however the ammunition is also classified as a destructive device and has its own $200 tax stamp.
These laws apply to all states that allow automatics, which is the majority of the states. I think roughly 38 but I'm not entirely sure.
And for the last time there is no such thing as a regular firearm's license, you don't need any form of license to get any form of Title 1 weapon.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;24100632]Errr, just because they aren't legal doesn't make them less dangerous or available.
Also automatic fire is really hard to kill with. If you've ever shot something in fully automatic, or even burst, it is really hard to get a decent grouping.[/QUOTE]
I think if anything, that may be the biggest factor in keeping them illegal.
The idea that someone guarding their house may use and automatic and "spray and pray" not really accounting for where the bullets wind up.
But then agian, you could argue that with semi-auto too.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24115669]I want one of these :D
[IMG]http://a.imageshack.us/img231/3058/40mmbeehiveround.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Dude, do want.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24107619]You DO need one for a full auto, a short barreled weapon, or a supressor. It's $200, and its a one-time fee. Some states do not allow ownership, or, like Washington, you can own it, but you can't shoot it.:fuckyou:
Why does it need to have a sporting purpose? The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about personal defense. The vast vast majority of gun owners do not use them for hunting, and aside from putting bullets into people who attack them, they shoot them at ranges, which usually involved shooting into a berm...[/QUOTE]
You don't need a license for them.
You just have to have them registered.
[QUOTE=evilking1;24107219]The fuck does a civilian need a full-auto weapons for?
There really isn't any sporting usage for them, if you look at youtube for full-auto MG shooting, all they really do is shoot in some ditch towards some sand barrier.
Collecting purposes aside though.[/QUOTE]
The majority of the people who own these collect them and shoot them for fun, I've known one guy who has one for self defense and it was an AR converted to select fire. I don't see any reason why they should be banned because there's no evidence backing up any of the claims people make about their danger in the hands of civilians.
In fact, just looking at murder rates per weapons used, cheap pistols and shotguns have a much higher body count than MAC 10s.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24104098]I assume you're talking about automatic weapons.
You don't need any sort of license for a regular firearm in the US.[/QUOTE]
No, I was talking about the Class 3 FFL.
[QUOTE=evilking1;24107219]The fuck does a civilian need a full-auto weapons for?
There really isn't any sporting usage for them, if you look at youtube for full-auto MG shooting, all they really do is shoot in some ditch towards some sand barrier.
Collecting purposes aside though.[/QUOTE]
The second amendment doesn't state you need a specific sporting use for the weapon, it states in plain English that "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't state you can't not own anything, nor that it need a specific purpose for you to own it. If you just want to do you're own thing and forget about specific rights because you don't agree with them go somewhere else, we don't want you here.
I don't agree that automatic weapons should be widely available, I feel they should be regulated and a persons history scrutinized before purchasing automatic firearms.
Also, just shooting toward some sand barrier, they seem to have enough common sense and knowledge of firearms to take into account safety measures. If you really want to discuss how you disagree with most of the people in this thread feel free to go make your own separate thread and leave us alone here to discuss firearms.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24111858]Somewhere along the lines of heavy artillery and tanks.[/QUOTE]
Tanks and artillery are available for private ownership, you just need to find someone selling them, which is sometimes a feat in and of itself. There is also plenty of red tape to make you're way through but it's still possible to privately own tanks, just like its possible to privately own military aircraft.
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24116043]You just go on and on and on about things you don't understand, don't you?
Here let me break it down for you.
There are three types of "Machine gun" (legal term) in the US, they go as follows:
[U]Transferable[/U] - These are automatics made [I]and registered[/I] prier to May, 1986. Any United States citizen over 21 with a clean record can own one after they pay a $200 tax stamp and get the firearm registered under their name. This process takes around 4 months. No new transferable automatics can be built for civilian ownership. The $200 tax stamp is [B]NOT A LICENSE[/B], it is exactly as the name implies, a tax stamp, it's a tax on automatics and it must be paid every time the weapon changes hands and for every automatic you buy. The weapon must also go through a class 3 dealer before it gets to you and the local sheriff must sign off on it.
[U]Pre-86 Dealer Sample[/U] - These are weapons that were made before May, 1986 but were not registered until after the ban on newly made automatics. Only those with a Class 3 DEALER'S license or an FFL07 Builder's License may own these. The dealer may keep these weapons after his license has expired but if he were to sell them, they must go to another dealer.
[U]Post-86 Dealer Sample[/U] - These are weapons made and registered [I]after[/I] May, 1986. Only one of each weapon may be personally owned by the Dealer/Builder and they must be either destroyed (receiver deactivated and sold as parts or just flat out torn to pieces) or sold to another dealer before the dealer/builder's license expires.
There, as you can see, you don't need a license to own an automatic, it just depends on the type of firearm.
There are also Destructive Devices, this ranges from anti-tank cannons to M203s to functioning Bazookas and RPG-7s, these are just as easy (and sometimes cheaper) to get as Transferable automatics, however the ammunition is also classified as a destructive device and has its own $200 tax stamp.
These laws apply to all states that allow automatics, which is the majority of the states. I think roughly 38 but I'm not entirely sure.
And for the last time there is no such thing as a regular firearm's license, you don't need any form of license to get any form of Title 1 weapon.[/QUOTE]
Quoting this for the new page so people will understand the laws.
[QUOTE=evilking1;24111630]Well would I have the right to bear nuclear arms then? Y'all know, just something for target practice.
The constitution was written when firearms were crappy muskets and whatnot, so the line needs to be drawn somewhere (imho).
[editline]05:36PM[/editline]
It sure is accurate, I mostly meant regular arms (SMGs/etc) that you shoot while standing.[/QUOTE]
ITT: Jealous Europeans.
[editline]09:22PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kais;24116350]The second amendment doesn't state you need a specific sporting use for the weapon, it states in plain English that "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't state you can't not own anything, nor that it need a specific purpose for you to own it. If you just want to do you're own thing and forget about specific rights because you don't agree with them go somewhere else, we don't want you here.
I don't agree that automatic weapons should be widely available, I feel they should be regulated and a persons history scrutinized before purchasing automatic firearms.
Also, just shooting toward some sand barrier, they seem to have enough common sense and knowledge of firearms to take into account safety measures. If you really want to discuss how you disagree with most of the people in this thread feel free to go make your own separate thread and leave us alone here to discuss firearms.
Tanks and artillery are available for private ownership, you just need to find someone selling them, which is sometimes a feat in and of itself. There is also plenty of red tape to make you're way through but it's still possible to privately own tanks, just like its possible to privately own military aircraft.[/QUOTE]
Actually it is completely possible to own Military aircraft. Depending on what aircraft it is.
[editline]09:24PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;24116183]I think if anything, that may be the biggest factor in keeping them illegal.
The idea that someone guarding their house may use and automatic and "spray and pray" not really accounting for where the bullets wind up.
But then agian, you could argue that with semi-auto too.[/QUOTE]
You've seen too many movies if you actually think spray and pray is used in real life.
From 15-20 feet away it is almost impossible not to hit a target with a rifle. One shot out of my ARs or AK would take them down no matter where it hit them.
[QUOTE=Asswipe;24116482]Actually it is completely possible to own Military aircraft. Depending on what aircraft it is.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I said in the previous post. And it's not certain aircraft it all depends on a persons ability to find one for sale and having the funds to pay for one, aircraft are not cheap.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24115669]I want one of these :D
[IMG]http://a.imageshack.us/img231/3058/40mmbeehiveround.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Ahh, beehive, seems like an upgrade from the hornets nest (only 10 .22 rounds, this is 18)
[QUOTE=Asswipe;24116482]
From 15-20 feet away it is almost impossible not to hit a target with a rifle. One shot out of my ARs or AK would take them down no matter where it hit them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, 'cause you use only one round when do the mozambique drill
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24116326]
In fact, just looking at murder rates per weapons used, cheap pistols and shotguns have a much higher body count than MAC 10s.[/QUOTE]
so the whole gun-murder issue could probably be solved by making all weapons cost a minimum of $10,000
[editline]10:49PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Asswipe;24116482]ITT: Jealous Europeans.[/QUOTE]
Jealous for it being over 50% less likely to be murdered here?
Not being able to own full-autos isn't that important to me, but being an oppressed European I probably don't understand the point of full-autos.
[QUOTE=Kais;24116350]Tanks and artillery are available for private ownership, you just need to find someone selling them, which is sometimes a feat in and of itself. There is also plenty of red tape to make you're way through but it's still possible to privately own tanks, just like its possible to privately own military aircraft.[/QUOTE]
When I said that, I meant that tanks and artillery should be made easier to own, not restricted more. I guess that could have been confusing.
Anti-tank weapons too.
[editline]04:52PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=evilking1;24118307]so the whole gun-murder issue could probably be solved by making all weapons cost a minimum of $10,000[/QUOTE]
No.
Making things more expensive or harder to legally obtain doesn't change anything.
[editline]04:55PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kais;24116595]That's exactly what I said in the previous post. And it's not certain aircraft it all depends on a persons ability to find one for sale and having the funds to pay for one, aircraft are not cheap.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty certain you can't buy an F-16 or anything for civilian use. MiGs and Sabres and such are open though. Certainly anything from the second world war, and even some cold war era helicopters.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24118490]When I said that, I meant that tanks and artillery should be made easier to own, not restricted more. I guess that could have been confusing.[/QUOTE]
If you think making artillery and tanks easier to own is a good idea...no. Just no.
[QUOTE=evilking1;24118307]so the whole gun-murder issue could probably be solved by making all weapons cost a minimum of $10,000[/QUOTE]
You do know that in the 80s the going price for a full automatic MAC 10 was $100-$200 right? You still had to go through the registration crap though.
You could get a Reising for $60 + $200 tax stamp.
[editline]05:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24118748]If you think making artillery and tanks easier to own is a good idea...no. Just no.[/QUOTE]
Give reasons.
I can't see gangsters robbing banks in tanks, do you have any idea how much they cost?
My friend is a licensed pilot and he found a MiG-21 on sale for $4300 in working condition.
I want him to buy it so then he can become a mercenary bomber for hire
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24118490]I'm pretty certain you can't buy an F-16 or anything for civilian use. MiGs and Sabres and such are open though. Certainly anything from the second world war, and even some cold war era helicopters.[/QUOTE]
You can, they're just hard as fuck to get.
[QUOTE=Viephemeral;24118748]If you think making artillery and tanks easier to own is a good idea...no. Just no.[/QUOTE]
"Just no" isn't an argument.
What would be wrong about someone owning a tank, besides "WHAT IF MAN."
[QUOTE=evilking1;24118307]so the whole gun-murder issue could probably be solved by making all weapons cost a minimum of $10,000
[editline]10:49PM[/editline]
Jealous for it being over 50% less likely to be murdered here?
Not being able to own full-autos isn't that important to me, but being an oppressed European I probably don't understand the point of full-autos.[/QUOTE]
You are jealous because if any country wanted to over run you they could with the ease of there being absolutely no guerrilla warfare from the citizens.
Just like in World War 2.
- And you have never shot a gun before so just get out of this thread.
Lets be honest here folks. Some guy who has never shot a gun in his entire life is here flaming gun laws because he is jealous that the United States is far more superior than his shitthole of a country. (Wherever that may be) Our army is far better, we have better technology in our Army and every day life, and to top it off - The Citizens own guns so attacking us is impossible.
I don't see whats wrong with owning a tank, just you couldn't drive it on public roads and use it's weapons (unless you worked as a reenactor and fired blanks) Same thing goes for most military hardware, if you can drive/fly/sail it and its safe then fire away.
[QUOTE=Mabus;24119483]I don't see whats wrong with owning a tank, just you couldn't drive it on public roads and use it's weapons (unless you worked as a reenactor and fired blanks) Same thing goes for most military hardware, if you can drive/fly/sail it and its safe then fire away.[/QUOTE]
Owning tanks and APCs is completely legal. You don't even need a license last I checked.
[QUOTE=Mabus;24119483]I don't see whats wrong with owning a tank, just you couldn't drive it on public roads and use it's weapons (unless you worked as a reenactor and fired blanks) Same thing goes for most military hardware, if you can drive/fly/sail it and its safe then fire away.[/QUOTE]
I agree about not driving it on public roads (things damage them like fuck) but you should be able to fire the weapons if your area permits it (large ranch, constructed range, etc).
[QUOTE=mastermaul;24118490]I'm pretty certain you can't buy an F-16 or anything for civilian use. MiGs and Sabres and such are open though. Certainly anything from the second world war, and even some cold war era helicopters.[/QUOTE]
That's because they're not sold to civilians, again I said you had to find someone willing to sell it to you, and you have to go through red-tape involved. Obviously a current generation aircraft will be impossible to acquire because the government really doesn't want some random guy running around with an F-16 and Lockheed Martin has contracts to produce large batches of fighters to multiple countries they're not just gonna sell one to Joe Smoe when they have contracts to fulfill. Use just a little common sense here.
Yes, Tanks are completely legal, no license required. Tanks are also rather hard to find although they do have an M16 Halftrack on the farm next to me along with about 40 deuce and a halfs but anyways there is no reason for tanks to be illegal. The only time anyone went GTA with a tank was when I guy stole it from a national guard base.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.