Senator Chris Murphy's Gun Control Filibuster Leads To Vote

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:
Machine guns
This includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (e.g., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is determined to be "readily convertible", and classed as a machinegun, such as a KG-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered").
Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)
This category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel less than 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.
Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)
This category is defined similarly to SBRs, but with either a smoothbore barrel less than 18" long or a minimum overall length under 26".
Suppressors
This includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor. In October, 2015 Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon introduced the Hearing Protection Act to remove suppressors from the NFA.[8]
Destructive Devices (DDs)
There are two broad classes of destructive devices:
Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50" inch, such as 20-gauge or 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

The NAtional Firearms Act of 1934 seems to work pretty well.

Under what conditions can a missile be owned and kept by a "citizen soldier" without an armory in between?

Heres some weapons on the list of what's NOT allowed to be owned (From a Wikipedia article).
If Conservipedia has a different take. Id love to read how the two services differ.

You are correct though that rights are not absolute. But I think everyone already knew that

Rights do however prohibit laws that have no good reason for existing

every time someone tries to pass REASONABLE gun legislation, the NRA start screaming that the lawmakers are trying to take away people's 2nd amendment right to bear arms,

Do you think expanding the EXISTING background check to also include sales at gun shows to be a law of having no good reason for existing?

What's happened to the background checks?

Every single time gun legislation has been characterized as "reasonable" it has turned out to be an outrageous violation of our rights.

"Reasonable" and "common sense" are code words for "we're coming to violate your civil rights".

The background check system has been corrupted by Barack Obama so that it now bars lots of law-abiding citizens from buying guns. Expanding the background checks to cover gun shows is not acceptable because that would then bar these law-abiding citizens from being able to buy guns.

If you were to reform the background check system so that it only barred criminals and the dangerously insane from buying guns, and you prosecuted Barack Obama in federal court for corrupting the system and got him sentenced to a long term in federal prison, maybe it would become acceptable to expand the reformed background check system

Oh. I don't think that's particularly worrisome. If someone else is legally allowed to sign and cash checks for them, they've either granted someone a power of attorney, or been judged mentally incompetent. That would be Alzheimer's disease or other dementia.

If they can't be held legally responsible for their actions, it seems a legitimate standard.

It certainly wouldn't apply to a veteran or other person physically disabled.

oralloy wrote:

Every single time gun legislation has been characterized as "reasonable" it has turned out to be an outrageous violation of our rights.

Can you provide any examples of any proposed gun laws that (YOU) believed to be an outrageous violation of our rights?

oralloy wrote:

"Reasonable" and "common sense" are code words for "we're coming to violate your civil rights".

Other than NRA talking points, what are you basing your conclusions on?

oralloy wrote:

It is more complicated than that. The background check system has been corrupted by Barack Obama so that it now bars lots of law-abiding citizens from buying guns. Expanding the background checks to cover gun shows is not acceptable because that would then bar these law-abiding citizens from being able to buy guns.

Again, that sounds like NRA talking points.

What are your sources for these claims?

Do you have any examples beyond simple talking points?

oralloy wrote:

If you were to reform the background check system so that it only barred criminals and the dangerously insane from buying guns, and you prosecuted Barack Obama in federal court for corrupting the system and got him sentenced to a long term in federal prison, maybe it would become acceptable to expand the reformed background check system.

That's sounds hateful, baseless, and without any foundation. That's the kind of talk I would expect from Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh

It is interesting that every time you hear a fact you think NRA.

That the NRA are the ones telling the truth here should tell you something.

Your characterization of a fact as a talking point does not delegitimize it as a fact.

I don't care if you consider it hateful.

We are gonna have to agree to disagree that your statements are accurate or factual.

I also don't put much credence into the NRA as a source of facts.

Again, we are gonna have to agree to disagree that the NRA are the ones telling the truth

Once again, we are going to have to agree to disagree that these talking points as being fact

your delusional drivel

Ya know, Sheldon (of Big Bang ), seemingly "understands certain words or phrases", but its still funny as to how they can make an entire comedy series based on his functional autism and how he really is clueless.

Like "Im trying to use sincerity to my advantage here but it seems that ( character's name here) is functionally unable to respond. I must do further research on this phenomenon"