Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@jcboy,

I don't kiss other men's pimply asses who shoot up with steroids. Who is this other personality?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Yeah, you'd be well advised not to question the acuity of anyone's intellect, bright boy . . .

1 Reply

@firefly,

Clip

The population of Libtardia grows again

0 Replies

Barack Obama wrote:

Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of dangerous weapons simply because of their age:

ATF is required to authorize the importation of certain “curio or relic” firearms, and outdated regulations include all firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago in the definition of “curio or relic.” But today, firearms manufactured more than 50 years ago include large numbers of semiautomatic military-surplus rifles, some of which are easily convertible into machine guns or otherwise appealing for use in crime. Congress should get rid of restrictions that prevent ATF from changing this definition, enabling ATF to ensure that firearms imported as curios or relics are actually of interest as collectibles, rather than letting these rules be used as a way to acquire fully functional and powerful military weapons.

http://www.a-human-right.com/oldtech.jpg

0 Replies

@oralloy,

So one of those guns is illegal in several states.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So one of those guns is illegal in several states.

No.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

parados wrote:

So one of those guns is illegal in several states.

No.

As equipped it is illegal in several states.

As equipped it requires a federal paperwork and must be registered with the Federal government.
As equipped the owner must have federal paperwork with the gun at all times.

1 Reply

@parados,

As long as H2oMan and oralloy are fine with the requirement that federal paperwork be filed and a $200 fee be paid before a gun can be transferred. And if they are also fine with a copy of the federal paperwork being with that gun all the time then I am fine with it as well.

Let's require it of all guns.

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Let's require it of all guns.

Unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

As long as H2oMan and oralloy are fine with the requirement that federal paperwork be filed and a $200 fee be paid before a gun can be transferred. And if they are also fine with a copy of the federal paperwork being with that gun all the time then I am fine with it as well.

Let's require it of all guns.

Its unConstitutional no matter how much u like it.

Your proposal is like taking a poll
qua whether we shud have slavery on alternate Thursdays.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Let's require it of all guns.

Unconstitutional.

Why is it unconstitutional? It is required of some guns and there is no question of the constitutionality.

It would be required of one of the guns you posted a picture of. That gun would also be illegal in several states .

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Its unConstitutional no matter how much u like it.

When was the national firearms act declared unconstitutional?

1 Reply

@parados,

You just don't get it.

The $200.00 tax stamp is called 'registration' what follows is called 'confiscation'.

Let's stick with the constitution.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Let's stick with reality.
Certain weapons have required registration since 1934. Those weapons have not been confiscated. Your overblown worries haven't happened in the last 80 years. Why do you think they would suddenly happen in the next 80 years?

1 Reply

@parados,

The US Constitution is YOUR reality

parados wrote:

Let's stick with reality.
Certain weapons have required registration since 1934.
Those weapons have not been confiscated.

Really?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yeah, you'd be well advised not to question
the acuity of anyone's intellect, bright boy . . .

Yeah, most of the time I 'm too polite to demean myself that way.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why is it unconstitutional?

There are some onerous restrictions to the NFA that would prevent many people from having guns covered by it.

parados wrote:

It is required of some guns and there is no question of the constitutionality.

That is because there is a plausible argument that preventing people from having NFA guns (the ones currently covered by the NFA) would pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

parados wrote:

It would be required of one of the guns you posted a picture of. That gun would also be illegal in several states .

The gun is legal in all states I believe. Only the silencer is banned in some states.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Its unConstitutional no matter how much u like it.

When was the national firearms act declared unconstitutional?

Which time?????

( Yea, I know u meant judicially declared . . . . )

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

There are some onerous restrictions to the NFA that would prevent many people from having guns covered by it.

Like requiring a picture, fingerprints and a background check?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
There are some onerous restrictions to the NFA that would prevent many people from having guns covered by it.

Like requiring a picture, fingerprints and a background check?

I went through that process plus paid the $200.00 tax stamp when I purchased my sound suppressor

I must add that buying a sound suppressor was one of my best firearm related purchases.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know