Zone1 Why not just amend the National Firearms Act to include ARs and AKs?

[bigrebnc1775]

Not a read herring.

Just curious your knowledge with interpreting words. Words are important, especially when it comes to the constitution.

Will you answer the question? Tanks...yes or no?

I am also curious about mustard gas and missile launchers but we can get to those next.

He's it was a red herring. No one is arguing for tanks

What Is a Red Herring Fallacy? | Definition & Examples.
I asked you what does infringe mean

 

[Catsnmeters]

Yes, as do cannons and private warships. both were commonly owned by private citizens when the Bill of Rights was written and the founders didn’t exclude them.

But the 2md amendment says "the right to bear". Bear means to carry. Since you can't carry tanks, cannons or warships, why would those be applicable to the 2nd amendment?

What about mustard gas and rocket launchers?

 

[Catsnmeters]

He's it was a red herring. No one is arguing for tanks

Someone is. Perhaps you need to speak with AZrailwhale ?

See post 258.

What Is a Red Herring Fallacy? | Definition & Examples.
I asked you what does infringe mean

"actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"

Are tanks not weapons?

 

[Ordinary Guy]

You're an idiot that sounds like a defunder

you are a shit for brains that knows dick about guns

 

[AZrailwhale]

But the 2md amendment says "the right to bear". Bear means to carry. Since you can't carry tanks, cannons or warships, why would those be applicable to the 2nd amendment?

What about mustard gas and rocket launchers?

You avoided the KEEP part. And yes, private citizens not only owned cannons and private warships, but almost all normal merchant ships were armed with multiple cannon. I really don't care what people possess as long as they don't use it illegally. Me owning a container of mustard gas (which is pretty easy to make by the way) is no more dangerous to other people than me owning a container of propane, of which I keep several on my property.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Someone is. Perhaps you need to speak with AZrailwhale ?

See post 258.


"actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"

Are tanks not weapons?

I know of several private individuals who legally own tanks. One is actually licensed for driving on the road because it has rubber pads on the tracks. Another owns at least twenty actual tanks, several fake tanks and about a hundred armored and non-armored military vehicles. He used to be a simple collector, then found out there was a demand by the entertainment industry and turned his hobby into a very profitable business furnishing operational props. If a movie needs a tank that he doesn't have in inventory, he will build a close facsimile for the movie.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Someone is. Perhaps you need to speak with AZrailwhale ?

See post 258.


"actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"

Are tanks not weapons?

Tanks are NOT weapons; they are vehicles that carry weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Someone is. Perhaps you need to speak with AZrailwhale ?

See post 258.


"actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"

Are tanks not weapons?

If you want to toy with the exact intent of the second amendment democrats are red coats.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You avoided the KEEP part. And yes, private citizens not only owned cannons and private warships, but almost all normal merchant ships were armed with multiple cannon. I really don't care what people possess as long as they don't use it illegally. Me owning a container of mustard gas (which is pretty easy to make by the way) is no more dangerous to other people than me owning a container of propane, of which I keep several on my property.

It doesn't say to keep or bear. It says to keep and bear. An important distinction.

So you are fine with American citizens owning rocket launchers?

 

[Mac-7]

I wonder if it's possible to have a real discussion on so called "assault weapons" without it devolving into hysterics. Let's see. I propose that if the Democrats really wanted to ban ARs and AKs they could do it simply by amending the already existing National FireArms Act of 1934. It has already been amended twice so why not just stop with the angry speeches and amend this law to do it? It is clearly related to the new class of weapons so named "assault weapons". I believe the Democrats don't really want to do anything, they get more political mileage out of posturing and speech making on "Gun Control". What say you?

National Firearms Act | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA...

www.atf.gov

No ban on ARs and AKs is acceptable

 

[Catsnmeters]

I know of several private individuals who legally own tanks. One is actually licensed for driving on the road because it has rubber pads on the tracks. Another owns at least twenty actual tanks, several fake tanks and about a hundred armored and non-armored military vehicles. He used to be a simple collector, then found out there was a demand by the entertainment industry and turned his hobby into a very profitable business furnishing operational props. If a movie needs a tank that he doesn't have in inventory, he will build a close facsimile for the movie.

Yeah. I know people own tanks. That is not in contention.

I am simply asking if tank ownership is protected by the 2nd...which you already answered of course.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you are a shit for brains that knows dick about guns

Oh fucking shit a know nothing anti gunners do and did it. Says a gun owner whose owned firearms for 50 plus years law enforcement experience, USAF Security Police and ABGD knows nothing Bout guns the police or laws lol.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah. I know people own tanks. That is not in contention.

I am simply asking if tank ownership is protected by the 2nd...which you already answered of course.

It was until it was legislated away

 

[Catsnmeters]

It was until it was legislated away

Like Reagan and the NRA did to machine guns made after 1983?

 

[Catsnmeters]

If you want to toy with the exact intent of the second amendment democrats are red coats.

Why?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't say to keep or bear. It says to keep and bear. An important distinction.

So you are fine with American citizens owning rocket launchers?

Ok and it also says shall not be infringed a very important distinction

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why?

Shall not be infringed means exactly that
Don't be caught as a red coat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No ban on ARs and AKs is acceptable

The NFA should be repealed

 

[Catsnmeters]

Ok and it also says shall not be infringed a very important distinction

Right. Again, I would argue that no right is absolute. Hell, even the late justice Scalia has said that.

The hard part is drawing the line.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Right. Again, I would argue that no right is absolute. Hell, even the late justice Scalia has said that.

The hard part is drawing the line.

Ok you can argue it just define what infringe means before you make an ass out of yourself.
FYI Scalia was talking about loosing a right when due process has been used. Not legislating rights away.