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.
You want .50 caliber machine gun?
Well go out, get educated, get a job that can pay for such idiotic luxuries, and go buy one, or two. Or three.
hell- they may even impress your upscale neighbors more than a garage full of Bughattis, but I doubt it. At least a Bughatti will get you down the road in style, comfort and speed. What's a machine gun good for other than scaring the neighbors and cutting down trees the most expensive way possible?
Like oversized McMansions, a hired household staff and gold tableware, or a private jet, nothing says you can't buy any of it. And there is nothing that declares any of it should be affordable so the average guy can own it either.
It costs a lot more money to make a bugatti than it does any average car, but it doesn't cost more money to make a gun fully automatic, it only costs so much more because of the government got their hands in it with their anti-gun legislation. So your comparisons are invalid.
Exactly, they think machine guns are already legal and that AR-15s are fully automatic. It's like they have a learning disability that prevents them from comprehending basic firearms knowledge.
And in the year 2014 that is just no reason for this..There is this thing called Google with all of into minus the lies.
You want .50 caliber machine gun?
Well go out, get educated, get a job that can pay for such idiotic luxuries, and go buy one, or two. Or three.
hell- they may even impress your upscale neighbors more than a garage full of Bughattis, but I doubt it. At least a Bughatti will get you down the road in style, comfort and speed. What's a machine gun good for other than scaring the neighbors and cutting down trees the most expensive way possible?
Like oversized McMansions, a hired household staff and gold tableware, or a private jet, nothing says you can't buy any of it. And there is nothing that declares any of it should be affordable so the average guy can own it either.
Much the case one why I can by a cheap one that was made last week?
Why should I have to buy a over priced 30 to 50 year old model when I could buy one that is cheaper, and safer?
I don`t have a right to own a Bugatti I do I have the right to own a firearm of my choice.
Self defense, hunting of feral bore, collecting, a d having fun are all uses.
McMansions are great, Who would not want a household staff of hot women, or a private jet?
You are right their is nothing that declares any of it should be affordable..There is how over a passage that say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and passing laws that limit or ban the new manufacture of a whole class of arms is just that an infringement.
Make the case against new machine guns being added the machine gun registry.
For those of you who do not know much about this subject I will explain.
Before May 19th 1986 you could buy a new machine gun for very little money because private citizens and companies could add more machine guns into the registry so the supply could be increased to match demand.
Now during the 1980`s during the "cocaine cowboy" days alot of people thought that machine guns were being used during crimes. This is not the case and to date only 5 legally owned machine guns have ever been used in crime in this nation since 1934.
This did not stop the Democratic(like any other major party would do something this illegal) Representative William J. Hughes of New Jersey add an amendment that banned the adding of new machine guns into the registry. This amendment failed both a vote and electric vote and yet still added to the bill.
This video is proof.
An amendment that failed not one but two votes some how made it into the final bill that was signed by President Reagan.
After the cut off date of May 19th 1986 no new machine gun can be added into the registry...
Now for a while the prices stayed very very low. After 1994 the internet went public and more and more people found out via the web that you can legally own machine guns. Now the law of supply and demand kicks in a finate supply but a every increasing demand has caused prices to sky rocket.
Before and after prices.
Before the registry was closed you could buy a newly made MAC-10 or MAC-11 for around $500 plus the $200 tax stamp. Now it would cost you $2500 to $3000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy a converted MP5 for close to $1000 plus a $200 tax stamp. Now it would cost you at least $15,000 to $18,000 plus the $200 tax stamp..
You could buy a Drop In Auto Sear for your AR15 for under $300 or build it yourself for about $5.00 a plus a $200 tax stamp. That same $300 Drop In Auto Sear now goes for $18,000 to $27,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy a War Trophy like a STG-44, MG-42 for a reasonable price, plus a $200 tax stamp. That same STG-44 now cost at least $90,000 mostly to the fact they are really old and not longer made, well a MG-42 now cost at least $70,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy a M60 E1, E2 or a E3 model for maybe $2,000 plus a $200 tax stamp. Now that same M60 will cost you at least $50,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could buy M2 Browning .50 cal for $3,000 plus a $200 tax stamp. Now that same M2 Browning will cost you at least $60,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
You could even buy a M134 Minigun for a cheap $12,000 to $15,000 plus a $200 tax stamp.. That same M134 Minigun now cost at least $500,000 plus the $200 tax stamp.
So this illegally added amendment has priced a whole class of arms out of the reach of the common man.
Now my questions are the following.
Why the hell do we not just reopen the registry?
Why turn down over $200,000,000 in tax revenue it would take in over the next 10 years?
Why limit the Civil and Constitutional rights of Americans to an arbitrary amount of devices at a arbitrary point in time for a arbitrary reasons via a illegally added amendment?
Why should we allow the registry to remain close when it has been found to be unconstitutional after US v. Rock Island Armory, Inc?
And please don`t give me some cop out such as "You don`t need one" or "the founding fathers did not for see repeating firearms" even though they had seen, and used them Google puckle gun.
The 1934 Firearms Act, is Unconstitutional.... PERIOD!
Shall not be infringed, sure got a very big infringement.
There are very learned individuals who actually are charged with the responsibility of determining what is.......and what is not........constitutional. It's called the Judiciary Branch of the United States government.
They all say your kitchen table analysis of constitutional law is wrong.
There are very learned individuals who actually are charged with the responsibility of determining what is.......and what is not........constitutional. It's called the Judiciary Branch of the United States government.
They all say your kitchen table analysis of constitutional law is wrong.
And they are always correct? Also, I don't think this law has been challenged.
I'd rather it be overturned based on the video evidence. It did not pass with a majority vote.
And they are always correct? Also, I don't think this law has been challenged.
I'd rather it be overturned based on the video evidence. It did not pass with a majority vote.
No, they are not always correct. No government entity is perfect all the time. But it is the most perfect system we have been able to cobble together in the history of humanity. Innocent people get convicted. Corporations are deemed people and the 2nd amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. We as a society agree to abide by their decisions. Once you lose the rule of law, then society collapses into chaos.
Admittedly, it is a very poor law, IMO. A clear case of the government sneaking one in on the people, But then, the 2nd amendment had not been affirmed by the courts to be an individual right. It would be interesting to legally revisit. NRA has more money than God, perhaps they could take it on. Sure would be a good fund raiser for them no natter the judicial outcome.
Problem is, when you start overturning longstanding federal laws you end up bumping into state's rights and their abilities to set even more draconian restrictions.
For gun rights advocates, the threat is not so much from the feds except for small annoying actions. It's from the states who enact very restrictive gun ownership policies. Maryland, New Jersey and California stand out in this regard.
I'm not against lifting the grandfathered requirement of MGs and Subs. We should be able to purchase newer models and current issue units. But i would keep the Form 4s, the 200.00 Tax Stamp charge and the thorough background check as it exist today. I would also continue the requirement of notifying the CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) in the location where the MG will be located. I have relatives who are in LE. They want to know where those MGs are for personal safety. Other than that, I wouldn't mind some of the new HK and Sig models, among others, now circulating.
Biggest problems I see are there are people here on this board who think those restrictions I just pointed out are still unconstitutional and would fight lifting the grandfather clause tooth and nail because of the background check and the tax stamp.
Last edited by mohawkx; 08-11-2014 at 01:03 PM..
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.
