Jump to content

What % thinks Full Auto is ok?


Full Auto Ok?  

284 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Full Auto be Legal?

    • Yes, It should be legal (with no GCA or NFA)
      228
    • Yes, like it currently is
      56
    • No, its evil.
      0


Recommended Posts

What if, What if, What if, What if, What if, ..... yada yada yada ...

 

NO RESTRICTONS. Any asshole who wants one will get one no matter WHAT the law says.

 

Now, internet access is NOT a right. Based upon some of the postings I've seen, maybe internet access needs regulated :haha:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

easy for you to say, fellow Pennsylvanian. but allow me to say this...

before becoming a proud citizen of the Commonwealth, i grew up in California.

now Pennsylvanians (as i've observed) are some of the most reasonable and self-regulating people i've ever met.

because they act in a civil , rational, and responsible manner, they've never needed an intrusive nanny-state to regulate them, and as the result are almost totally free, including in the areas of firearms and taxation. that's what i love about it, it works exactly as i like to think the founding fathers intended it.

 

but the caveat is this: it works as a social contract between the citizens and each other with the government as the intermediary and based entirely in the full faith and credit established between the citizens in their ability to rely on the mediated behavior of their neighbor citizens: it may not be that hard, but it is NOT a passive process. when, be it by their own caprice, or by malicious manipulation of societal norms by our elites, citizens stop practicing basic mature and reasonable civil behavior, the individuals behave as actors outside the safety of the civil contract and the government inflates to fill the void under the rationale that now they are protecting you from others, and by logical leap, protecting you from yourself.

 

if you want to see what that looks like, go to California. because i could go on for days with horror stories from CA and you still wouldn't believe me.

IT'S

THAT

BAD. ......trust me.

Edited by headarmorer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
easy for you to say, fellow Pennsylvanian. but allow me to say this...

before becoming a proud citizen of the Commonwealth, i grew up in California.

now Pennsylvanians (as i've observed) are some of the most reasonable and self-regulating people i've ever met.

because they act in a civil , rational, and responsible manner, they've never needed an intrusive nanny-state to regulate them, and as the result are almost totally free, including in the areas of firearms and taxation. that's what i love about it, it works exactly as i like to think the founding fathers intended it.

 

but the caveat is this: it works as a social contract between the citizens and each other with the government as the intermediary and based entirely in the full faith and credit established between the citizens in their ability to rely on the mediated behavior of their neighbor citizens: it may not be that hard, but it is NOT a passive process. when, be it by their own caprice, or by malicious manipulation of societal norms by our elites, citizens stop practicing basic mature and reasonable civil behavior, the individuals behave as actors outside the safety of the civil contract and the government inflates to fill the void under the rationale that now they are protecting you from others, and by logical leap, protecting you from yourself.

 

if you want to see what that looks like, go to California. because i could go on for days with horror stories from CA and you still wouldn't believe me.

IT'S

THAT

BAD. ......trust me.

 

In a name the solution.

 

Darwin

 

The ultimate in self regulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Section 9 - Limits on Congress.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

There were no Amendment changes allowing the 1934 National Firearms Act to be Constitutional.

There exists the fact that prior to the Act, one could freely purchase any machinegun or other Title II weapon by simply paying for it and walking out of the store with the receipt and gun in hand.

With the passage of the Act, those who had legally purchased any Title II prior to the Act were required to register it, or else it became contraband.

This is a violation of the Ex post facto provision noted above

No one has ever challenged the NFA and subsequent firearms laws based on this particular portion of the Constitution.

I recently wrote to the Attorney, of note, in the David Olofson case to inquire if this would be addressed in the appeal procedure. To date there is no reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Is the rubber band considered a machine gun by the BATFE?

 

Not to my knowledge, but maybe if Hillary gets in office. For now, a rubber band is still just a rubber band.

 

All wise assing aside, I really don't know. I think if given an opportunity to rule on it, they'd be against it. They did say that things like gatling setups for 10/22's were a no no. Not advising or suggesting anything, just thought that it was interesting given the topic at hand...

I believe it was a shoe string that was determined to be a machinegun, but not a rubberband so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

That is funny, no one was voted no. 49 people have voted yes as it is currently. So looks like 49 faggots are not registered on this forum only one fag that can't read. :haha:

 

 

edit why is this thread under .308 and not general discussion

Edited by madmax4x4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I have to say leave it like it is. The NFA has done a very good job of keeping fully automatic weapons out of criminal hands. You do occasionally see it, but it's very rare. You have to draw the line somewhere, and this is where I draw it. Think of it this way: if someone with a semi-automatic weapon started randomly firing in a public place, and someone in the crowd is armed, there's a very good chance they can draw and kill the guy before he got to them. Take this same situation with a fully automatic weapon and it's a completely different story: the person is going to simply hose down the area and no one will have any time to react. The ONLY thing a fully automatic weapon does is allow a single person to kill large numbers of people faster. It makes no real difference against a single target vs. a semi. All it does is let someone "spray and pray". You cannot really argue in favor of it in a defense situation, and there's too many arguments against it. It's too uncontrollable (and thus can endanger unintended people), and just too many bullets, too fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriot has the right idea. Without a Constitutional amendment, THE NFA IS ILLEGAL! All gun control and registration laws are illegal. Whether or not they are a good idea is completely irrelevant.

 

No fucking FFLs, no background checks, no registration, no restrictions on carrying, openly or concealed, hell, no fucking age limits! The constitution says that a 12-year-old can buy a glock18c and carry it to school on his hip.

 

Does that sound like a good idea? Fuck no! But it is what the Constitution says, and any law which contradicts the Constitution is invalid.

 

Being an adult to purchase (most) weapons makes sense. I, for one, have no problem with a system that allows a 15-year-old to buy a bolt-action .22 or a 20-gauge shotgun. Where to draw the limit? Dunno, open to debate. Right now, by my highly biased interpretation of the Constitution, no such restriction is legal. For the sake of argument, let's say that right only extends to adults.

 

If you, as an adult 18 years of age or older, wish to purchase and carry a pistol, it is your RIGHT to do so. It is not a privilege, and it cannot be denied you legally. However, the U.S. federal government says that you must be at least 21 years of age, and allows states and local governments to enact laws which further restrict your ability to purchase, own, and carry these weapons.

 

As far as I know, Alaska is the only state that has the right idea in that regard; if by federal (illegal, unconstitutional) law, you can own a pistol, you may carry it concealed without a permit. I know of no other state in which this is the case.

 

If I wish to leave my Saiga-12 sitting in the passenger seat when I drive to work, then take it out and lock it in the trunk before I walk in, that is my right. However, that right is denied to me.

 

 

Back on topic...

 

I have no use for a machine gun. If they were reasonably available (as opposed to the present finite supply, sky-high-price situation), I don't know if I would purchase one or not. However, by law, it is MY place to make that choice, not the place of the federal fucking government. No entity in this country has the right to regulate firearms. The BATFE does some very useful things, but the time has come to remove the F.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...