Members and mods of this very board advocated for this idea during the post Sandy Hook panic.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/41...e-machine-guns
Members and mods of this very board advocated for this idea during the post Sandy Hook panic.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/41...e-machine-guns
**** that! There should be no NFA! There should be no BATFE!
As much of a struggle just getting suppressors de-regulated has been, why the F would we give up our ability to to buy/own AR's without additional "permission"?
Screw David Chipman. Figures a former BATFAG would support some bullshit like this.
Sure, register your AR. Then somewhere down the road another mass shooting happens (and it will) and they decide "That's it, hand 'em over!" Guess what? You have no choice at that point, there is no deniability or "I sold it to some guy at a gun show". Nope, you better cough it up or you go to prison.
Of course the powers-that-be would smell a rat right away when only a small fraction of the AR's out there are actually registered. They'd know damn well that there were still a gazillion that weren't registered.
Nah, no thanks.
Forget that noise, when discussing the left we are not dealing with reasonable people, we are dealing with people who would be members of the communist party if it were socially acceptable or if they were born in Cuba. No “compromises” to be made with people like this.... If our elected officials went for that, next to be put on the list are handguns, the mass killers would move to using handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter used, 10 round limit or not, it really doesn’t make a tiddly winks difference in body count.... And once handguns are there we will need truck control and control of anything you can make a bomb with, followed by sharp object control. The real agenda of the “common sense gun control” crowd is disarmament to implement further people control.
Now if we were dealing with rational people (and we are not, so I say not one inch more), I’d be cool with making AR’s & similar rifles NFA for the repeal if 922(o). I mean, every long gun I own is NFA anyway, so it wouldn’t change my life much.
It all comes down to SCOTUS and how fast and how they rule. We need a definitive ARs and 30rnd mags are Kosher ruling, toot sweet. Then you are negotiating from a position of strength.
ETA: It is funny to listen to McDonald, after Heller gave the individual right, that even with this codified, the left still could come up with all kinds of ways to make it meaningless. Registrations, fees, gun locks and others things that make the right hard to use.
In the next round of SCOTUS oral arguments, someone needs to make it explicitly clear that we, the people, have the right to defend ourselves no matter what their interpretation of the 2A. Blacks had the right to be free before and after the Emancipation Proc and 14A. If you recind the 14A, blacks still have the right to be free. Stop trying to say you are 'giving' me these rights. The 2A acknowledges my right and makes clear to the govt that they don't have the power to take away that right. If they try to take away that right, they are only reinforcing the need and validity of my right.
That may be one of the most disappointing posts I've ever read on this site. Isn't it high time we learned that compromise does not work with the left or the right for that matter? Maybe you're ok with Uncle Sugar knowing all your business, but I sure as hell am not.
Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.
Funny that my thread title was edited.
The post doesn’t show that it was edited at all.
One of the Circuit Court rulings may have opened up a can of worms for the anti-gunners. This is from an NPR article in 2016, when the SC declined to hear an appeal to a 2nd Circuit ruling that upheld the NY and CT bans:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...pons-ban-stand
So the liberal judges admitted that AR-15s are protected by the Constitution (and, we can safely assume, most other semi-auto weapons). BUT, they also ruled that the government can simply ignore the Constitution whenever they claim they need to do so. In other words, the Constitution is like the Pirates Code in Pirates of the Caribbean: More like guidelines rather than actual rules. I can't see how the conservative/originalists on current court, even Roberts, would agree with a ruling like this.Quote:
The question before the Second Circuit, then, was whether assault weapons are commonly owned and whether the weapons are "dangerous and unusual" in hands of law-abiding citizens.
The Second Circuit answered yes to the first question but found that empirical evidence to answer that second question was "elusive." The Court decided that owning weapons like the AR-15 is, indeed, protected by the Second Amendment.
But, the Court argued, government can sometimes have a legitimate interest in impinging upon a Constitutional right. In this case, the Court ruled, banning assault weapons can save lives.
It was a blessing that the SC did not take this case when it came before them, as with the then 4-4 bench, this whole ruling would have been upheld. It wouldn't be the end of civilian ARs; it would be the end of all our rights.
Yup. And while watching the Georgia v Kentucky game on CBS as we speak, 60 Minutes is touting highlights for tomorrow night’s episode: “The Weapon”... What 60 Minutes has uncovered about the weapon that been used in the recent mass shootings...”
Remember, there just as many retired and current ATF reps who don’t share the same opinion as this wanker. Of course, their opinions don’t fit the desired narrative.
And the beat goes on... blah blah blah
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Something I posted in the other thread:
Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.
In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances. ;)
In the first 5 seconds of that tripe, I wanted to punch that guy in his shiney ass teeth. No diff than Fienstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schmuck Schumer,ect.
I think this is the tact that they will play. Yes we have the right, but we can restrict that right. Now if you can add restrictions on rights so that the right is meaningless, what is the use of the Constitution. Obviously, there is a balance there. The left's favorite argument revolves around the 1A and is that you can't yell "Fire' in a crowded theater, you can't call for violence, you can't perjure, slander, or libel someone. Look at all of these restrictions, in the name of 'safety' and fairness.
That is a pretty weak argument, since there is no real limit to what you could say is a potentially legitimate restriction on firearms in the name of safety. Firearms are meant to, designed for, and used to kill people; words are not. If preventing death by firearms is your goal, the only way to achieve that is through getting rid of them all. And what right is protected then? The restrictions around 'free speech' are about the misuse of the right. By all means make it illegal to threaten people with a gun, kill (unjustly) people with a gun, restrict people like felons from guns. The last one goes far further than any 1A restriction.
Actually, I got a bit wordy and off-track. I really think that we need to (and I am guilty of it too at times) saying that the collectivists assault on the 2A takes away our rights. It does not. We have that right whether the 2A held holy or thrown in the garbage. We never so clearly had the right that is explained in the 2A as when the govt tries to take away our ability to exercise that right.
Fights are won by sneaky bastards, wars are won by brave, smart, sneaky bastards- and then you write the history.
Hell yes!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we should take AR 15s away from the ATF? The very idea is to have a weapon of war JUST as GOOD as the military has. By the way, it says "arms", not guns. This means arms just like the Army has---all forms of arms. So, if you don't like civilians having weapons of war, change the Constitution.
There will be no confiscation, outside of very concentrated urban areas (who have few ARs anyways). They collectivists just outlaw stuff and require you to deal with it. Then they pick off people at traffic stops, home fires and especially divorces and ugly family fights. You can't take them to the range anymore and the trip back and forth becomes Hollywood shootout if you get pulled over.
That is how it goes. They force us underground as they bring illegal aliens into the light.
NRA-ILA wrote an excellent piece on this.
Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...5-registrationQuote:
Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.
In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”
Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state,
To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.
Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.
Good
I can't wait to get new MGs.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
cell phones are killing more kids then any AR ever will yet no registration or age limits on cell phones ? long term effects of the new distracted idiocy is going to get worse
when folks keep saying LEO or others wont come for your guns they are on our side ! I keep saying NO not all of them are and more and more we are finding out many might not be on our side
AND the reality is the ones at the top giving orders are pretty much all against gun owners it seems
same thing with the thread when someone mocked the FBI ! its not the few ground agents its the high up and sadly the way the FBI is the high ups are the majority
If you read the direct quote from the former BATFE agent he blathers on about . . .
"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file."
The whole "weapons of war" talking point he is just regurgitating. I surmise the GLOCK he was issued along with it's magazines and ammunition while on that SWAT team are also "weapons of war", why stop there?
This cannot be over emphasized.
well it keeps it forward in minds and keeps the antis having new fuel from a so called expert to break down the ones not sure or on the fence the fuds etc..
when they hear WOW even some ATF agent wants them regulated well he was a pro maybe he knows something I do not
this is purely BS of course and its the way the left keeps the pond full of ripples by poking the water every chance they can get ! we will never have calm sadly
I wish the republicans could get on board with this weapons of war and pass a weapons of war bill so it opens up all weapons :) we could just register for some rocket launchers or whatever true WEAPONS of war we wanted to play with and take out any and all other fire arms since they are not used in war
would love to hear the dems say NO NO we meant ....
not to make it pass of course just to call it out for what it is nothing to do with war pure control grab
double tap.
Maybe trade ar-15 registration for open registry.
Then I can get the 249 I always wanted... oh, and DD so We can get HEDP for 203s.
I never heard anyone on M4C advocate making ARs NFA items.
I have said that if Dems were strategically smart they would put that forward because it would get more support (and legal precedent) than their stupid outright bans.
But their donors (Bloomberg and his advocacy army) want bans. So they push bans.
Agree the NFA should be abolished. It’s archaic and unconstitutional.