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.
Feel free to PM him if you want incorrect info on the assault weapons ban. can you cite the section of the assault weapons ban law that specifies barrel length? Links?
This is where it gets fuzzy, and I can't remember exactly where it's at. National Firearms Act laws are separate from the AWB.
IIRC the current federal law is that a rifle cannot have a barrel length of less than 16 inches. A 14.5" barrel is allowable as long as it has a permanently attached muzzle device that makes it 16" (brake/compensator, etc.)
I'm not arguing against gun ownership, in fact, I am all for it. I own firearms just because I CAN, because the prevailing and current interpretation of that part of the Constitution gives me the RIGHT to have them.
Currently own- .45ACP pistol for CCW when my license arrives in the mail
9mm Beretta 92FS for when I don't feel like spending an
arm and a leg to shoot, and
5.56/.223 AR15-pattern rifle which I am beginning the
process of getting a suppressor for (for giggles, and
because I have the money to)
The second amendment is there so citizens can be armed just like the government.
It is in there so the people have every right to bare arms against a ruling central government.
So no King's men(President's men) could take your rights away.
Citizens could and did have cannons, in the 1800's.
National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated that when it was passed, but iirc there were a LOT of places up until that point that had no specific gun laws, and thus people at the time could own cannons and other goodies that would be heavily restricted today.
National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated that when it was passed, but iirc there were a LOT of places up until that point that had no specific gun laws, and thus people at the time could own cannons and other goodies that would be heavily restricted today.
In other words, another of many unconstitutional laws, passed in the "Progressive: I could careless about the US Constitution" times, of FDR.
It gave the Central Government and all the Presidents men, more power than the people.
We were screwed from that point forward.
Slowly waking up, they are seeing the Police State today.
National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated that when it was passed, but iirc there were a LOT of places up until that point that had no specific gun laws, and thus people at the time could own cannons and other goodies that would be heavily restricted today.
If you have the cash you can buy an early 19th century Indian Howitzer. And boy is she a beauty.
In other words, another of many unconstitutional laws, passed in the "Progressive: I could careless about the US Constitution" times, of FDR.
It gave the Central Government and all the Presidents men, more power than the people.
We were screwed from that point forward.
Slowly waking up, they are seeing the Police State today.
I doubt that we'll ever have a police state, I doubt that another AWB will be passed anytime soon, and a seizure would never work. Too many people in favor of gun ownership, too many gun owners with firearms that would qualify as banned, and it's an election year. It would have to be passed in one of those odd years where there are no elections at a national level.
National Firearms Act of 1934 regulated that when it was passed, but iirc there were a LOT of places up until that point that had no specific gun laws, and thus people at the time could own cannons and other goodies that would be heavily restricted today.
Prior to 1934, anyone could walk into a hardware store and purchase a Chicago Typewriter. That's a Thompson sub machine gun, caliber .45 ACP for all on the down low. Farmers bought them to guard their cattle from rustlers even. I'll take three please! "How are you paying for those"? Cash$$$$ $200 each!
Not by the person the question was posed to, but now he has answered it...
Now, you gonna pull a quote out of the Federalist Papers you cited that you believe states that the general population is only allowed to be armed up to the point of the common soldier, but not with any weapons that need to be manned by multiple men as you claimed earlier?
'Cause I scanned what you cited up and down and do not see a reference to that.
I doubt that we'll ever have a police state, I doubt that another AWB will be passed anytime soon, and a seizure would never work. Too many people in favor of gun ownership, too many gun owners with firearms that would qualify as banned, and it's an election year. It would have to be passed in one of those odd years where there are no elections at a national level.
What on earth do you mean?
You're in a police state ... up to your ears ... or should I say down to your boxer shorts.
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.
