Damn DemoRATS!!!

kenny, I wasn't quite aware of the ban of fully automatic weapons. When "Assault Weapons" were brought up, I associated them with automatics. My bad.

To be honest, I never tried to understand the logic behind the 2nd Amendment and its interpretations. I think the mentalities differ too much here. I come from a world where civilian ownership of weapons is generally restricted. My question was, as posted, dedicated to the actual purpose of certain weapons in civilian hands. Some replies were enlightening, some were mildly amusing. In my country, possession of weapons is basically limited to the purposes of self-defense, hunting, sports-shooting and collecting - none of which is a purpose an automatic weapon would be quite fit to fulfill (imho), except maybe the latter point. Military-grade weapons are available for sports shooting, but they must be reconfigured to semi-auto only.
 
rainynight,
Strictly speaking, there doesn't have to be a purpose. But here's the most important one; the one the drafters had in mind: The implied threat that a percentage of the population has the means for armed uprising helps deter tyranny.
 
rainynight65, The enemy may one day be people with automatic weapons.

Without the means of being physically able to defend your freedom from a malicious government you're just a slave in que.

I am not saying our situation is at that point..or anywhere near that point, but it does seem like we are at the tip top of an avalanche that's slowly building up for a huge disaster.
 
You do realize that fully automatic weapons are also illegal in our country and have been since 1939.

It sounds like your asking this question with hopes to understand the logic behind us being allowed to have them.

kenny b
Click to expand...

I think your facts are bit contorted.
 
You do realize that fully automatic weapons are also illegal in our country and have been since 1939.
Click to expand...

Nope all you need is the $$$ some paperwork approved by the feds and a tax stamp. Once approved anyone can own a fully automatic weapon.

The prohibiting factor is cost. No new automatic weapons made after 1986 can be put on the federal registers for individual ownership. The cost of some run over $10,000 easily. So legal auto weapon ownership is prohibited by cost. I know I dont have $15,000 I can spare for one.

Now criminals who dont give a hoot about law can smuggle them over the border pretty cheap.
 
Eghad

"Once approved anyone can own a fully automatic weapon."

Not all states allow one to own a Class III weapon. It is not legal in my state of Washington.
 
I believe it would be a much shorter list if we can name the few states that will allow them with special permits.

My statement was in fact true. It is illegal for the average joe here in America to own a fully automatic weapon. Yes the system can be circumvented with the right paperwork and money. Of course with the right paper work and money one could also be licensed to purchase high explosives.

kenny b
 
It is illegal for the average joe here in America to own a fully automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

If "average joe" has the cash and lives in a state which allows ownership of an auto weapon. Gets the papers approved and pays for his tax satmp he can legally own an automatic weapon. There is no circumvention of the system because the system allows you to own it by law. The price you pay is between you and the dealer. The Federal government charges $200.00, not one cent less or more.

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=02

The list of states....

I believe it would be a much shorter list if we can name the few states that will allow them with special permits.
Click to expand...
http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=06
 
Its about absolute control over the common folk.
Click to expand...

So then the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is what? That the Democrats don't mind if you know it? Because aside from your gun safe, the Republicans haven't exactly been the party of freedom lately either.
 
Juan Carlos -

You have made some very good posts in my other thread and an accurate one there also.

The Democrats are nothing more than a "kinder, gentler" version of the Republicans economically, certainly not breaking into Left wing economics and ensuring civil liberties and necessary freedoms. The difference is the foreign policy and the United States Liberal crew just doesn't have a correct understanding of the measures that need to be taken in the Middle East, that's why I prefer the Republican Party at the moment.

Everyone needs to be reminded that Libertarianism and Conservatism are only two portions of the Right Wing, just like Authoritarian Socialism and Communist ideals are only two portions of the Left and that the Right holds Absolute Monarchy's, Military Junta's, Militarism, Fascism, Aristocracy etc.

Plenty of bad things as well.
 
Sasquatch, as far as I know, us Washingtonians can own full-auto weapons as long as we fill out the paperwork, pay the tax, etc. I e-mailed the Washington State licensing department regarding that stuff, and they didn't say it was illegal. We've got some bizzare regulations though... For instance, we can own silencers, but to my knowledge, we can't use them on firearms (???). Who knows.
 
What purpose does a military-issue assault rifle with a firing rate of 300rd/m and more serve in the hands of a civilian?
Click to expand...

While I personally can't fathom why I would ever want one of those, besides for the same reason why I might buy a really fast sports car or a 96" plasma screen, the right to keep and bear arms is not a matter of techonology.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should all go back to using muzzleloaders, because the founding fathers didn't have fully automatic weapons. Maybe we should go back to using quill pens. Laser printers or bird feathers - they both get the job done.

And ban online message boards. Because Ben Franklin didn't have no internet.

Wait, now that I think about it, I really want a mini gun. Attached to helicoptor. So I can go rescue Morpheus from Agent Smith.

Or an M60 that I'll shoot from the hip. Because I wanna be John Rambo for Halloween.
 
If the Fed was for the people, it would issue M-16s for militia duty. A well regulated militia requires a standard arm chambered for a standard round.

When we fought the Brits for independence we had better long guns than they had. It would only make sense that we have a rifle equal or better than what is current issue. The Founders would have wanted it that way.

Fully automatic firearms would be a waste of ammo. We as civilians do not have the luxury of having a Helo to drop munitions for resupply. One shot one kill is the creed we would have to live by, instead of three round bust and hope they die. A 20 round mag of 7.62x51 NATO is equal to 60 rounds of 5.56x45 NATO rounds IMO. Be a crack shot, not a sprayer and prayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top