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 1968 Congress opened a thirty (30) day amnesty period where any person possessing an unregistered NFA firearm could register said NFA firearm for free and without liability for any previous violations of the law. During this time hundreds of firearms were registered including many war trophies.
The actual law allowed for up to ninety days and three amnesty periods, but the Treasury Department (then managing the NFA) did not see fit to use the last two periods and sixty days. Since then many collectors have pondered whether the ATF would take advantage of the law and offer another amnesty period.
Well, I guess ATF has to go to his house and “Ruby Ridged” him then
It is incorrect use but I have to say that even in the Marines in the 80's we commonly called magazines clips even though we knew the difference between a magazine and stripper clips.
However, we NEVER called them guns...we called them rifles.
This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for killing and this one's for fun!
I never heard a Marine call a magazine a clip. Maybe they're the ones who also used the term "troops."
If you can not agree on a definition AND the definitions cannot pass muster as "rights shall not be infringed" under the constitution - any restriction is just a feel good measure.
Bury your head in the sand - less than half the states even try because they are unpopular in the majority of states - you can't just ignore that, that is a fact.
They are basically worthless laws because they don't pass muster and ONLY impact lawful citizens, they have NO effect on criminals. These laws are often more nuisance than impactful since mainly deal with cosmetics. They are primarily lip service by legislatures to gullible voters. The status quo is mainly due to lack of enforcement of the laws that do exist.
The recent Rasmussen polls indicate that you are in the minority - the polls suggest less than 1 in 4 support repealing the Second Amendment, even among democrats it was only about 1 in 3. Even restrictions on "assault rifles" was supported by less than half of those polled. The Constitution requires 2/3 of house and senate and 3/4 of the states for modifying any amendment - those numbers are no where close.
Either sit down and LISTEN to the other side on reasonable laws - calling for bans on assault rifles without understanding what an assault rifle is not the way to start a discussion. Reasonable discussion means compromise - those that want to start with bans as "reasonable" are NOT discussing - they are dictating.
Please quote any post where I even hinted at being in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment.
I am certainly NOT in agreement with the banning of, particularly the AR15, or any derivatives thereof. I believe I've stated any number of times now that the definition "assault weapons" as used by any number of entities including state legislators is wrongheaded.
I stated very early on in this thread that is would serve better purpose to focus upon the persons using such weapons that the weapons themselves.
As a realist, I know any attempt to ban or confiscate would just result in a grey market surge of those firearms and those already owned getting lost overboard, being reported as stolen or simply slathered with cosmoline, wrapped in an oilskin and buried under the old oak tree.
I believe I've also stated that "sitting down and listening" was what was needed from BOTH sides of this issue.
State all the polls, and stats you like but in spite of all of those; can you deny there is yet another effort being made to further restrict firearms? Do you expect that to diminish?
My point remains one of unifying to force discussion and compromise from BOTH sides of the issue. Ignoring the tide will only get your ankles wet.
Why do we allow people to make gun laws who know nothing about guns and do everything in their power to cozy up to criminals?
It is the same liberal government that allowed this Syrian born (radicalized) Muslim to come here and kill 10 people, just like they let in the 9/11 highjackers, and the Boston Marathon bombers, then ironically, use these killings to justify imposing new rules on spying on Americans, and propose more restrictions on gun ownership for law abiding American citizens.
Explain to me why a handgun or hunting rifle is not enough for you?
Handguns give you time to get to your rifle.
"Hunting rifle" is a subjective term.
There are calibers such as .30-06 used for hunting that make the rifle essentially a sniper rifle. Capable of being incredibly lethal for very long distances. But they typically don't hold many rounds, sometimes can even be limited to 2 or 3 by local or state laws
This aren't the best choice for a home defense weapon.
Because the ammo is so powerful that it will go through multiple homes worth of housing construction materials with ease, including brick. This puts others in your home and neighborhood at risk.
And the limited capacity doesn't leave much room for error if you miss.
And people DO miss, especially when in a high stress situation. They can also be rather heavy.
An AR-15 typically uses a smaller, less powerful round, 5.56 being the most common. (Although it can be chambered in larger calibers).
5.56 is far less likely to over penetrate and the increased capacity means that you don't have to reload as often or work a bolt or lever action to operate the weapon in a stressful situation. And they're typically considerably lighter weight than a hunting rifle or a shotgun and also have less recoil.
This makes them a much better choice for home defense than what most people think of as a "hunting rifle".
Hunting rifles do have one advantage though, especially if you actually hunt.
And that's if, God forbid you actually have to use one to defend your life and family, lawyers have a harder time painting you as a gun nut in court because they're not "scary black rifles".
It is the same liberal government that allowed this Syrian born (radicalized) Muslim to come here and kill 10 people, just like they let in the 9/11 highjackers, and the Boston Marathon bombers, then ironically, use these killings to justify imposing new rules on spying on Americans, and propose more restrictions on gun ownership for law abiding American citizens.
That is precisely why many people believe there are shady aspects to 9-11 and other mass shootings or terrorism...if anyone eve came out with hard evidence the US govt was indeed 'involved' to some degree...that would be the end of the US govt that day...
I think, even then, diehard, law abiding people would agree, its time to take up arms against Govt.
Firearm registry is unacceptable at any time for any reason. There is no reason for it other than confiscation. No one has ever explained how a registry PREVENTS anything.
You should NOT have to "register" in order to exercise a RIGHT GUARANTEED under the Constitution!
"Shall NOT be infringed"
So again, I ask to all those FOR gun regulations, what does "infringed" mean to YOU?
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.
