Reply With Quote
You know what I mean.
Hughes amendment.
Machine gun ban except antiques.
So I ask again, should fully automatic weapons be legal? Should you be able to walk into a Bass Pro Shop and buy a fully automatic weapon?
Yes or no? Quit pussy-footing around!
No, it's not. The SCOTUS decision is what it is, and it's precedence to show it's not debatable in lower courts.
IF you think USSC case law is debatable, you're more stupid than you present yourself to be most of the time (and that's saying a lot).
You know what I mean.
Hughes amendment.
Machine gun ban except antiques.
So I ask again, should fully automatic weapons be legal? Should you be able to walk into a Bass Pro Shop and buy a fully automatic weapon?
Yes or no? Quit pussy-footing around!
That is the stupidest ing reason I have ever heard.]
Literally the stupidest ing reason. We dont live in the 1700/1800s.
We dont live in ing anarchy, there is no possible chance of a tyrannical goverment happening in the next 100000 years.
And foreign invasion? Join the ing army if you want to protect your homeland so bad. Or you can join it if you think you can do a better job than them. Or you can let the army do its job and protect us from "foreign invasion"
When was the last legit threat we had of a foreign invasion needing us to bear guns?
It wasnt stupid when they made that amendment, but now it is and its time to overrule that.
Exactly. Those reasons suck and are ing stupid, thats like arguing Bowser is going to mutate from a lizard and take over the world.
of course you should, it's what the founding fathers intended. civilian firearm ownership wasn't just for personal protection against an individual attacker.
From your OWN LINK:
DMC just owned himself.The domestic manufacture of new machine guns that civilians could purchase was effectively banned by language in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "McClure-Volkmer"). The language was added in an amendment from William J. Hughes and referred to as the Hughes Amendment.[22] Machine guns legally registered prior to the date of enactment (i.e. May 1986) are still legal for possession by and transfer among civilians where permitted by state law. The static and relatively small number of transferable machine guns has caused their price to rise, often over $10,000, although transferable Mac-10 and Mac-11 submachine guns can still be purchased for around $3,500. Machine guns manufactured after the FOPA's enactment can be sold only to law enforcement and government agencies, exported, or held as inventory or "dealer samples" by licensed manufacturers and dealers. Machine guns made after 1986 for law enforcement but not transferable to civilian registration are usually priced only a few hundred dollars more than their semi-automatic counterparts, whereas a pre-Hughes Amendment registered machine gun that can be legally transferred commands a huge premium.
So again, answer the question:
Should machine guns be available for commercial purchase? Should they drop the "new machine gun" regulation?
DMC wont answer the question....chicken- .
I'm sure if the SCOTUS made that decision in 1789, you'd argue that times have changed and we need a new decision, so quibbling about when the decision was made is pointless, tbh...
So you are a "cons utionalist"!
Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.
Heres a hypothetical? If the founding fathers had said "Right to own explosives", would you be okay with bombs be legal and available for purchase?
At the very most, let the states continue to decide on how they want to regulate gun ownership..... not everything has to be a federal issue, tbh... in fact, too many things are these days....
Antiques? lol
Preban (pre 1986) is not antique.
There are some Thompsons out there that are antique, and some BARs but they are still considered NFA weapons and fall under the 1986 pre ban (cannot purchase if registered after that year unless you have a letter from a police chief and you are a FFL class 3 dealer or a police/military department.) but you can own a fully automatic rifle.
The bottom line is that fully automatic weapons are not illegal and there are 10's of thousands of these things out there. They are not cheap, but then that wasn't your argument.
Go Google more and get back to me on your next revision of your ty argument.
States do not hold the power to deny Cons utional rights.
Antiques? lol
Preban (pre 1986) is not antique.
There are some Thompsons out there that are antique, and some BARs but they are still considered NFA weapons and fall under the 1986 pre ban (cannot purchase if registered after that year unless you have a letter from a police chief and you are a FFL class 3 dealer or a police/military department.
The bottom line is that fully automatic weapons are not illegal and there are 10's of thousands of these things out there. They are not cheap, but then that wasn't your argument.
Go Google more and get back to me on your next revision of your ty argument.
I KNEW you wouldnt answer it, wuss.
How much does that gun cost DMC? A LOT huh? Probably because manufacturers are BANNED from selling automatics and you gotta find one THIRTY years old or older from a private citizen, huh?
So answer the question, chicken- . Should they lift the ban? Should fully automatics be available for commercial distribution and purchase? Should they be able to sell brand new, state-of-the-art fully automatics in Walmart?
You wont answer the question. But I'll keep asking.
lol hypothetical "if" argumentsSo you are a "cons utionalist"!
Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.
Heres a hypothetical? If the founding fathers had said "Right to own explosives", would you be okay with bombs be legal and available for purchase?
They are.So you are a "cons utionalist"!
Its a good thing they didnt put anything on that piece of paper REALLY messed up since you have canonized the founding fathers.
Heres a hypothetical? If the founding fathers had said "Right to own explosives", would you be okay with bombs be legal and available for purchase?
They have... the Enumeration Clause, Article 1, Section 9, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, all of which helped keep slavery in place... luckily, we have an amendment process to rectify things like that....
There you go again.
DMC pussy-foots around every question.
Should there be any restrictions on bombs, DMC? Should anyone be able to buy a pre-assembled, ready to light pipe-bomb from a commercial store?
Bump
I KNEW you wouldnt answer it, wuss.
How much does that gun cost DMC? A LOT huh? Probably because manufacturers are BANNED from selling automatics and you gotta find one THIRTY years old or older from a private citizen, huh?
So answer the question, chicken- . Should they lift the ban? Should fully automatics be available for commercial distribution and purchase? Should they be able to sell brand new, state-of-the-art fully automatics in Walmart?
You wont answer the question. But I'll keep asking.
If you think USSC rulings can never be overturned, then you are even more clueless than you presented yourself to be earlier in this thread.
So then it's not about right to own, but ability to purchase. So then since a Ferrari costs 100K+, no one has a right to own one?
I KNEW you wouldnt answer it, wuss.
How much does that gun cost DMC? A LOT huh? Probably because manufacturers are BANNED from selling automatics and you gotta find one THIRTY years old or older from a private citizen, huh?
That's the next revision of your ty argument; to ask me another question about "ought" and ignore "is".So answer the question, chicken- . Should they lift the ban? Should fully automatics be available for commercial distribution and purchase? Should they be able to sell brand new, state-of-the-art fully automatics in Walmart?
I wouldn't buy a .22lr from Walmart. I guess we know where you shop.
[quote]
No, you'll keep ignoring the fact that I down your neck on your several false assumptions.You wont answer the question. But I'll keep asking.
Like I said, plebe, get your learn on then get your yap on.
So then it's not about right to own, but ability to purchase. So then since a Ferrari costs 100K+, no one has a right to own one?
That's the next revision of your ty argument; to ask me another question about "ought" and ignore "is".
I wouldn't buy a .22lr from Walmart. I guess we know where you shop.
No, you'll keep ignoring the fact that I down your neck on your several false assumptions.
Like I said, plebe, get your learn on then get your yap on.
STILL wont do it.
This is actually fun.
Cmon, DMC. You can do it. Just answer the question. Dont make jokes about walmart or whats technically still available for purchase between private citizens etc.
Im asking a simple question: Should they, or should they NOT, lift the automatic weapons ban implemented in 1986 under the Hyde amendment?
Its a simple question. Yes or No.
You aren't going to be on the USSC, so for you, it's not debatable. Once the USSC issues a ruling, that's what it is. Roe v Wade might get debated in little circles of useless banter, but abortion clinics don't go on standby awaiting your decisions.
You pussy-foot around every answer and ascribe arguments to people who didn't make them, B...
You asked if fully automatic should be legal. They are.
STILL wont do it.
This is actually fun.
Cmon, DMC. You can do it. Just answer the question. Dont make jokes about walmart or whats technically still available for purchase between private citizens etc.
Im asking a simple question: Should they, or should they NOT, lift the automatic weapons ban implemented in 1986 under the Hyde amendment?
Its a simple question. Yes or No.
You asked if bombs should be legal: they are
You are now asking me if Walmart should sell them.
Make up your ing mind what you are trying to ask.
the point being is that if it was debatable for 200 years, then a 5-4 scotus decision 4 years ago doesn't suddenly end the historical/contextual debate.
I just don't get why da_suns_fan keeps coming back in here to get shat on, tbh.... at some point, you have to admit when you've lost the argument, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
