| |
to tshirt
Re: It's their right.said by tshirt:said by mikedz4:what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?
Be ok with me but... what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm? that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress. they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health) But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields. No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth. What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels? |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2013-Feb-21 11:19 am
said by nonamesleft: No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.
See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution. said by nonamesleft: What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?
A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook. Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation |
|
| |
said by tshirt:said by nonamesleft: No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.
See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution. said by nonamesleft: What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?
A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook. Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation The 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendement without it, the 1st amendment goes bye bye, hence no more freedom of speech. |
|
4 edits |
to tshirt
said by tshirt: Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation
There already is and has been for about 80 years. It's called the National Firearms Act, which prohibits things like machine guns (automatic) weapons, sawed-off shotguns, bombs, missiles, large bore rifles, etc. Just how many of the 80 million or so gun owners are involved in killing someone or are suggesting they should have things already banned by NFA? Point being, stop lumping the 99.9998% of good folks in the category of the lunatics and criminals that commit these acts by implying we are not reasonable and responsible. People are easily distracted by shiny trinkets and our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events. |
|
 bTU
join:2009-04-22
Aurora, CO |
bTU
Member
2013-Feb-22 5:53 pm
The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF. |
|
 tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium Member
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA |
tim_k
Premium Member
2013-Feb-22 6:52 pm
said by bTU:The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.
What confused even some pro gun folks is the provision on machine guns in the Firearms owners protection act. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi ··· tion_Act A machine gun must be registered before May 19 1986 in order to be legally owned by civilians. No newer full autos can be registered. So how much hassle is it to own a class III firearm? I've heard that you need to have paperwork approved just to transport them somewhere and the Feds can inspect your place to make sure they are properly stored. |
|
1 edit |
to bTU
said by bTU:The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.
What's your point? That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise? Hello?? |
|
tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium Member
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA |
tim_k
Premium Member
2013-Feb-23 2:13 am
said by whoaru99:said by bTU:The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.
What's your point? That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise? Hello?? I think his point is, you said quote:
There already is and has been for about 80 years. It's called the National Firearms Act, which prohibits things like machine guns (automatic) weapons, sawed-off shotguns, bombs, missiles, large bore rifles, etc.
Technically they aren't prohibited, at least by the Feds. You just need to pass their requirements for owning them. |
|
1 edit |
I understand what was said, which is why I questioned the point with this...
That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?
99.999% of gun owners haven't shot anyone and ten times less than that haven't killed anyone. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are fine, upstanding citizens, despite insinuations and or allegations otherwise. |
|
