Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:31 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,260,475 times
Reputation: 3229

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
please read the federalist papers. the 2nd is there to let the people be armed with the same sort of weapons as the ordinary soldier is, not crew served weapons.
Why don't you point me to the passage you're referring to, rather than just stating with authority that "Its in there"....

It isn't like the Federalist Papers are a bathroom stall pamphlet...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:32 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,150,589 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
I'd say a very reasonable limit on handgun ownership for concealed carry is whatever the local constabulary police force deems necessary for it's officers. In NYC that would be the Glock 9mm (although the feds are stepping up to the .40 caliber.)

I carry 2 pistols when carrying ccw, I carry a Ruger Alaskan in 454 casull and a Glock 21 in 45 ACP. both have 2 reloads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,320,466 times
Reputation: 4211
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Mostly because when a cop pulls his/her gun, the stress level is high.

The only thing they stress about when I've seen them shooting is their egos because they're embarrassed when they suck in front of people watching at the range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,320,466 times
Reputation: 4211
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamTM View Post
That's the true definition if you want to get technical about it. A semi can't be one, thus it's not regulated under the NFA of 1934 AND Class III.

If you get caught with an assault weapon in a banned state do you get charged under what the law says or what some "true definition" is. What matters more? I say what the definition is under the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:38 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,150,589 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Why don't you point me to the passage you're referring to, rather than just stating with authority that "Its in there"....

It isn't like the Federalist Papers are a bathroom stall pamphlet...

#46

The Federalist #46
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:38 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,812,931 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Mostly because when a cop pulls his/her gun, the stress level is high.
Are you suggesting that in square range training scenarios that leos are more likely to experience a debilitating adrenaline dump than non-leos training along side them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:43 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,847,165 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
My response draws out where that line is drawn. The question then relates to Congress' right to ban weapons it deems too dangerous to allow possession -- such as assault rifles.
Yeah man, barrel shrouds kill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:44 PM
 
1,263 posts, read 1,166,084 times
Reputation: 341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma View Post
If you get caught with an assault weapon in a banned state do you get charged under what the law says or what some "true definition" is. What matters more? I say what the definition is under the law.
There's a big difference and always has been on being in possession of an unlicensed machine gun and a AWB in a State that doesn't allow it. The illegal Class III is automatic $10,000 fine and ten years in prison. I doubt the penalty is that severe for being in possession of a thirty round pre ban mag in a State that doesn't allow it. The same for a flash hider or bayonet lug. That's not a suppressor or select fire. AWB isn't regulated under NFA regulations. I wouldn't want to be the guy caught with either, however, I would think that they wouldn't go as hard on you for a AWB violation. Remember, that's a State offense. Not a FEDERAL charge like a unlawful posssesion of a Class III item.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,391,349 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
Mostly because when a cop pulls his/her gun, the stress level is high.

Cop accidentally shoots himself - YouTube

Lots of stress in that classroom there, huh? But he's the only one qualified to have that gun...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,150,589 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamTM View Post
There's a big difference and always has been on being in possession of an unlicensed machine gun and a AWB in a State that doesn't allow it. The illegal Class III is automatic $10,000 fine and ten years in prison. I doubt the penalty is that severe for being in possession of a thirty round pre ban mag in a State that doesn't allow it. The same for a flash hider or bayonet lug. That's not a suppressor or select fire. AWB isn't regulated under NFA regulations. I wouldn't want to be the guy caught with either, however, I would think that they wouldn't go as hard on you for a AWB violation. Remember, that's a State offense. Not a FEDERAL charge like a unlawful posssesion of a Class III item.

the point is, is that all of the firearms listed in AWB 94 were not assault rifles at all. not a single one of them.

all of the firearms listed were listed for the way they looked, not because of their firing capability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top