Quote:
So you don't agree with how the 86 law is written?
I don't think it is unconstitutional but I think it was a dumb law. Repeal it if you don't want it. BTW the NRA agreed to let it pass to get the FOPA which they thought to be more important. That's kind of my position, more important things to fight over than somebody's right to own a stinger, like keeping my CCL.
Won't you lend your support to repeal it since you think it's a dumb law. We need everybody's help to repeal as many stupid or dumb laws as we can get. We won't get your support on the NFA because you agree with it. But since you think the 86 law was dumb, will you support getting it repealed?
Quote:
So semiautos were not designed for military use?
Nope. They were around way before the military adopted them. I think the reasoning was the brass thought they wasted ammo.
Still, they would be very useful in military applications and they found there way into the military in a big way. The M1 being the most famous. That was firearm designed for military use. I don't agree with the notion that just because some weapon was designed for military use or civilian use that this should determine whether civilians can have it or not. It comes down to the government having to prove that banning possession of such weapons indeed protects society at large while minimizing the infringement of the individual, civil rights, protected in the 2nd. I still have not seen any logical proof that the M16 is at all more dangerous than the AR15.
Quote:
Could an M16 not be used to hunt?...I think it would make a great tool for either of those activities.
I think the M203 would be better. I'm sorry these are silly questions.
Why are they silly questions? Just because you can't answer them logically? Why is an AR15 OK to hunt with, but not an M16? That's a very logical question if you understand the workings of both models.
Quote:
Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation.
One is a machinegun the other is not. Pretty simple.
You'd like it to be that simple, but it's not. They are of the same "design", TG. The same man, Eugene Stoner, designed the rifle. They both reload the next round in exactly the same fashion. They use the same parts. They have the same bolt. You sure don't seem to know that much about firearms.
Quote:
Now, everyone has to go through a background check to purchase any new firearms.
Not with private sales.
Agreed. However, for full auto, I'd be willing to make all sales go through an FFL for an instant check. In exchange, I'd make the goverment drop the "transfer" fee. That is one area where we might find a comprimise.
Quote:
Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934
.
Few if any owned them. See my previous posts.
Doesn't matter. There should still have been enough people who owned them to allow normal statistics to come into play. If allowing civilians to own full autos was as dangerous as you say it is, the law of averages would have shown at least some issue with this situation, prior to 1934. The government was after the gangsters, who were involved in criminal enterprises and using full auto firearms to commit crimes. Just as today, criminals use handguns to commit most of their crimes. Should we then treat handguns as we do full auto guns? I don't think you could sell that approach very well today.
Quote:
Why do we need "extra" scrutiny for full auto's?
See previous posts.
I have. In effect you are saying (in previous posts), "Because I don't like them in civilian hands and the law agrees with me". That's a non answer IMHO.
Quote:
There are still groups of gunowners who would sell other gun owners down the river just because they don't fancy the same types of firearms.
Nobody has sold you down the river. Go buy an M-16 if you wish. Nobody is stopping you.
Unless I want to buy one made after 1986. Also, the government has essentially stopped me by making them too expensive by artificially depleting the supply. So, yes, someone is stopping me. And we have been sold down the river in the past with fellow gun owners helping to do the selling. The AWB of 94 is one such example. You should be aware of that since you own an Assault Weapon.
Quote:
He said that no body needs and assault weapon to hunt. He said, "What are you going to do, make hamburger out of the deer?" That's an old line but it's still being used today.
Yeah I understand the way some hunters feel but that is changing as people who shoot are about the same number as those who hunt. That didn't use to be. I thought a Mini-14 was banned in 1994. Glad it wasn't.
And there was no reason to ban the AR15 either. That didn't stop the politicians, the Brady Bunch, the VPC, and other anti gun or pro gun control groups from doing everything they could to ban those. Why would you ban the AR15 but not the mini-14? Stupidity? Ignorance? Politics. Remember, Ruger himself was for the AWB 0f 94. Gee, since his guns (mini-14) weren't affected, but his competitors' guns (AR15 and clones) were, do you think he had any political and economical biases to cheering for the AWB? I think he might have. That's a glaring example of one type of gunowner selling others down the river.
[/QUOTE]
Gee