patriot 7,197 Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 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 Link to post Share on other sites
dancapostagno 0 Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) 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 April 23, 2008 by headarmorer Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFox 69 Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 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
engbob 0 Posted May 29, 2008 Report Share Posted May 29, 2008 I wish Chuck Norris would kill this thread already Link to post Share on other sites
appalacious 0 Posted June 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 How is this thread still around? By far the longest one I've ever started. J Link to post Share on other sites
bboyce 0 Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 This thread is still here because people keep replying to it and moving it to the top, wait, oops, sorry I did it too. Ben Link to post Share on other sites
Surly 11 Posted August 6, 2008 Report Share Posted August 6, 2008 I wish NFA '34 would go away...maybe someday. Link to post Share on other sites
bf2rules141 3 Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 OMG ... KILL THIS THREAD .... Link to post Share on other sites
gunnysmith 4 Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 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
gunnysmith 4 Posted September 10, 2008 Report Share Posted September 10, 2008 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
DS12 1 Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Only a fag would say it shouldn't be allowed. . . Oh look there are 49 faggots registered on this forum. Link to post Share on other sites
madmax4x4 68 Posted September 26, 2008 Report Share Posted September 26, 2008 (edited) 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. edit why is this thread under .308 and not general discussion Edited September 26, 2008 by madmax4x4 Link to post Share on other sites
joelrod47 373 Posted September 26, 2008 Report Share Posted September 26, 2008 This is the "THREAD THAT WILL LAST FOREVER AND NEVER EVER GO AWAY" !!!!!! OMG !!! Please, please, please.......let it be over now.................... Link to post Share on other sites
Bayoupiper 738 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 With the price of .308 ammunition, why the hell would you want a damned FA??????????? Link to post Share on other sites
WardenWolf 6 Posted October 19, 2008 Report Share Posted October 19, 2008 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 7,197 Posted October 19, 2008 Report Share Posted October 19, 2008 WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD?????????????????????????? Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 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
kresk 10,063 Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Topic being closed per OP's request. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts