Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the original case of US V Miller, the feds lied and said that the short barrel shotgun had no military use at all and was not used in the military. anyone that has ever served in the military or been in combat knows that to be a outright lie.
Can we bring the same case against the NFA as was Miller?
Some great sites about short barrel shotguns and how that ruling is just oh so wrong.
For the very reason you don't think I should have the 3 I have owned for 50 years.
I would rather have it and never need it, than need it bad and not have it.
If the crap ever hits the fan, with the oncoming police state, I will be more than capable to defend my family and property.
If more machine guns are added to the citizenry just think how much militarized the police will have to be so that they aren't out armed like the bank robbery in LA that started all this.
If more machine guns are added to the citizenry just think how much militarized the police will have to be so that they aren't out armed like the bank robbery in LA that started all this.
They can not get more worse then they are now...And I rather be better armed then I am now should they go full retard and try anything.
It was the 1960`s and the riots and "days of rage" that started this...
Really. There were no machine guns back then. Self defense lol are you kidding me. Machine guns have no use in this day and age. Stop hiding behind guns and use your own wits. You may be surprised how effective you are at that.
If you used your wits, you might know that the "they only had muskets in 1789" argument is a silly one. The intent of the Second Amendment was to preserve the freedom of the citizenry at large by providing them with the right to own the same weapons that were used by the world's military forces at the time.
Similarly, private ships of war were allowed during that time. It was common for wealthy ship owners to outfit privateers and obtain licenses to prey on the enemy's commerce shipping. In those days a warship was one of the most powerful military weapons around - and the world's governments saw nothing much wrong with their being in private hands as well as national navies.
A gun is nothing more than a mechanical device, your wits should be able to work that out. What you probably dislike about them is correctly attributed to human behavior, not some inherent evil property of an inanimate object.
If more machine guns are added to the citizenry just think how much militarized the police will have to be so that they aren't out armed like the bank robbery in LA that started all this.
I have no objection to the police having automatic weapons as long as they have the same constraints placed on them as private citizens. For example, I can't train a laser sight on a policeman's chest, and he shouldn't be allowed to do it to me.
If a burglar is in my house and attempts to flee, I can't shoot him because the threat has ended. It should be the same for the police when they shoot unarmed people 81 times and in the back running away.
Imagine if the Sandy Hook kids and teachers all had machine guns. Think of the killer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
