Simple question to gun advocates

[radical right]

"Very low" implies more than one. A SINGLE case from 1934 to the present day is not "very low". It is nonexistent.

Looks like the 1934 NFA worked. You guys claim gun laws don't work.

BwaaaaAAAAAAAA

 

[westwall]

"Very low" implies more than one. A SINGLE case from 1934 to the present day is not "very low". It is nonexistent.

Looks like the 1934 NFA worked. You guys claim gun laws don't work.

BwaaaaAAAAAAAA

Prior to the NFA the use of machineguns was incredibly rare. There were less than 50 people using them in the whole country. It was a law that targeted a nearly nonexistent crime. Further, if the defendants attorney had actually showed up to Court, the NFA would have been tossed out and it wouldn't even exist.

 

[Slade3200]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

 

[radical right]

Prior to the NFA the use of machineguns was incredibly rare. There were less than 50 people using them in the whole country. .

s
Did you count George Kelly as one of them?

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986?

No, but I was in 6th grade, so I really didn't have much say.

Do you support it now?

Still absolutely no. (most particularly, the Hughes Amendment)

Why or why not?

1. Because fuck commies.
2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.
3. It did not prevent any violent crime as the commie left promised. It resulted in the commie left calling for even more gun restrictions, when that one didn't work.
4. Fuck commies.
5. No 2A advocate would support it now, and it would NEVER pass, because the untrustworthy communists on the left continue to push for more restrictions.
6. Did I mention, fuck commies?

You want equal weapons to that of the army? So since they have tomahawk missiles and nukes do you think it a smart idea to equip our citizens with the same?

Tomahawk missiles, grenades, and nukes are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting either.

Yes but they would need to be used to defend ourselves against our government. I'm speaking to the handful of people on this thread saying they want to be armed with the same gear as our military so we can defend ourselves per our second amendment right.

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

Up until 1986 machineguns were legal to make and sell. I bought my 1921 Colt Thompson for 1,200 bucks way back in the 1970's. Today that weapon is worth a little over 75,000 thanks to the 1986 law. And, as has been stated, the only criminal use of a legally held machinegun was by an off duty cop. So your statement that machineguns used in crime is very low is in error. It is in fact a singular occurrence.

I never said the use was very low. I never even brought up their use. I did speak to Uzi's and AK-47's and asked if people supported the 1986 provision though.

 

[westwall]

Prior to the NFA the use of machineguns was incredibly rare. There were less than 50 people using them in the whole country. .

s
Did you count George Kelly as one of them?

With a moniker of "Machine Gun Kelley", you betcha!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986?

No, but I was in 6th grade, so I really didn't have much say.

Do you support it now?

Still absolutely no. (most particularly, the Hughes Amendment)

Why or why not?

1. Because fuck commies.
2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.
3. It did not prevent any violent crime as the commie left promised. It resulted in the commie left calling for even more gun restrictions, when that one didn't work.
4. Fuck commies.
5. No 2A advocate would support it now, and it would NEVER pass, because the untrustworthy communists on the left continue to push for more restrictions.
6. Did I mention, fuck commies?

You want equal weapons to that of the army? So since they have tomahawk missiles and nukes do you think it a smart idea to equip our citizens with the same?

Tomahawk missiles, grenades, and nukes are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting either.

Yes but they would need to be used to defend ourselves against our government. I'm speaking to the handful of people on this thread saying they want to be armed with the same gear as our military so we can defend ourselves per our second amendment right.

Unless most citizens had that kind of armory, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from our military. Not to worry anyway because no matter how tyrannical our government could get, our military are Americans first and would never defend a dictator.

My issue with firearms is the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal element.

 

[radical right]

Did you count George Kelly as one of them?

With a moniker of "Machine Gun Kelley", you betcha!

Bonnie and Clyde?

 

[westwall]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986?

No, but I was in 6th grade, so I really didn't have much say.

Do you support it now?

Still absolutely no. (most particularly, the Hughes Amendment)

Why or why not?

1. Because fuck commies.
2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.
3. It did not prevent any violent crime as the commie left promised. It resulted in the commie left calling for even more gun restrictions, when that one didn't work.
4. Fuck commies.
5. No 2A advocate would support it now, and it would NEVER pass, because the untrustworthy communists on the left continue to push for more restrictions.
6. Did I mention, fuck commies?

You want equal weapons to that of the army? So since they have tomahawk missiles and nukes do you think it a smart idea to equip our citizens with the same?

Tomahawk missiles, grenades, and nukes are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting either.

Yes but they would need to be used to defend ourselves against our government. I'm speaking to the handful of people on this thread saying they want to be armed with the same gear as our military so we can defend ourselves per our second amendment right.

Unless most citizens had that kind of armory, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from our military. Not to worry anyway because no matter how tyrannical our government could get, our military are Americans first and would never defend a dictator.

My issue with firearms is the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal element.

Tell that to the Afghans. An insurgency is a huge drain on the manpower of a modern army. We have now been over there for more than 10 years with no end in sight.

 

[westwall]

Did you count George Kelly as one of them?

With a moniker of "Machine Gun Kelley", you betcha!

Bonnie and Clyde?

You want to name all of the bad people who used them now? Feel free. And for the record Clyde used a cut down BAR that he stole from a National Guard armory. Not a legal weapon. In fact MOST of the machineguns that the gangsters and bank robbers used were guns stolen from the military and law enforcement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kind of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986?

No, but I was in 6th grade, so I really didn't have much say.

Do you support it now?

Still absolutely no. (most particularly, the Hughes Amendment)

Why or why not?

1. Because fuck commies.
2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.
3. It did not prevent any violent crime as the commie left promised. It resulted in the commie left calling for even more gun restrictions, when that one didn't work.
4. Fuck commies.
5. No 2A advocate would support it now, and it would NEVER pass, because the untrustworthy communists on the left continue to push for more restrictions.
6. Did I mention, fuck commies?

You want equal weapons to that of the army? So since they have tomahawk missiles and nukes do you think it a smart idea to equip our citizens with the same?

Tomahawk missiles, grenades, and nukes are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting either.

Yes but they would need to be used to defend ourselves against our government. I'm speaking to the handful of people on this thread saying they want to be armed with the same gear as our military so we can defend ourselves per our second amendment right.

Unless most citizens had that kind of armory, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves from our military. Not to worry anyway because no matter how tyrannical our government could get, our military are Americans first and would never defend a dictator.

My issue with firearms is the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal element.

Thats different than the case that others are making, but I agree it is a valid concern and well within our rights that should be protected

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

Up until 1986 machineguns were legal to make and sell. I bought my 1921 Colt Thompson for 1,200 bucks way back in the 1970's. Today that weapon is worth a little over 75,000 thanks to the 1986 law. And, as has been stated, the only criminal use of a legally held machinegun was by an off duty cop. So your statement that machineguns used in crime is very low is in error. It is in fact a singular occurrence.

I never said the use was very low. I never even brought up their use. I did speak to Uzi's and AK-47's and asked if people supported the 1986 provision though.

You claimed automatic weapons were used in gang shootings in the 80's and then linked to a story about SEMI automatic weapons.

 

[Slade3200]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

 

[The Original Tree]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Lefty can get automatic weapons from Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton. We need Automatic Weapons to Protect ourselves from Lefties like The Vegas Shooter, and the Congressional Baseball Game Shooter.

End Thread.

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

Up until 1986 machineguns were legal to make and sell. I bought my 1921 Colt Thompson for 1,200 bucks way back in the 1970's. Today that weapon is worth a little over 75,000 thanks to the 1986 law. And, as has been stated, the only criminal use of a legally held machinegun was by an off duty cop. So your statement that machineguns used in crime is very low is in error. It is in fact a singular occurrence.

I never said the use was very low. I never even brought up their use. I did speak to Uzi's and AK-47's and asked if people supported the 1986 provision though.

You claimed automatic weapons were used in gang shootings in the 80's and then linked to a story about SEMI automatic weapons.

Good, I guess you proved yet again that i'm a total dumb shit. I don't know why you even lower yourself to engage with people like me. Feel free to join another thread so you can spend your time in a better way. I'm getting tired of dealing with your random bullshit that has nothing to do with what i'm trying to discuss.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm fine with automatic weapons being banned. But if we give the gun control freaks and inch they take a mile, look lets be honest the gun control lobby their goal is to ban guns, period. It doesn't matter how much we compromise with those assholes they will just keep coming back until there is a full ban on private gun ownership.

How many of YOUR guns did they come and get?

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Lefty can get automatic weapons from Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton. We need Automatic Weapons to Protect ourselves from Lefties like The Vegas Shooter, and the Congressional Baseball Game Shooter.

End Thread.

Ha. Yeah, smart guy here thinks shooting machine guns back at the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel would have helped people defend themselves against the shooter. What do you think the body count would have been in that scenario?

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm fine with automatic weapons being banned. But if we give the gun control freaks and inch they take a mile, look lets be honest the gun control lobby their goal is to ban guns, period. It doesn't matter how much we compromise with those assholes they will just keep coming back until there is a full ban on private gun ownership.

How many of YOUR guns did they come and get?