The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

Not banned. Regulated. You just need a FFL license to own them. And MOST people can easily pass the background check for one of those.

Once again we see that the left is completely clueless about firearms and gun laws. Nobody - nobody - can own a fully automatic Barrett M468. You can own a 1938 Thompson Sub Machine Gun or a 1979 Israeli Uzi, but you cannot own the current fully automatic version of the Barrett M468 (you can own the “civilian” semi-automatic version).

Under federal law, private citizens are banned from owning machine guns made after 1986, and all fully automatic weapons must be registered with ATF.

But it doesn’t end there. You can’t even manufacture replacement parts for the pre-1986 automatics (ensuring that they will eventually wear out and ultimately cease to exist).

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Do yourself a favor and just stop talking about firearms and then 2nd Amendment. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. None.

Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Absolutely nothing ends in catastrophic failure like left-wing policy...

Crime in the UK has spiraled out of control. There are no guns in the country, and yet the murder rate in London has now overtaken that of New York City. How can that be!? People were still hurting and killing each other, but they just moved on to doing it with knives.

They’re also confiscating — and this isn’t a joke — scissors, pliers, screwdrivers, hammers… anything AT ALL that might be used as a weapon. What’s next? A ban on hands and feet?

Yes...progressivism really is that stupid. Take away guns, people will kill with knives. Take away knives, people will kill with hammers. Take away hammers, people will kill with automobiles. Take away automobiles, people will strangle their victims to death. And all the while, the idiotic left-wing policies just set society back centuries.

Quick, hide the cutlery!

And just who is talking about taking away all the guns? Maybe from the mentally deranged. Well, the way you post that just might be you. Can't tell that without a shrink making that determination.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not banned. Regulated. You just need a FFL license to own them. And MOST people can easily pass the background check for one of those.

Once again we see that the left is completely clueless about firearms and gun laws. Nobody - nobody - can own a fully automatic Barrett M468. You can own a 1938 Thompson Sub Machine Gun or a 1979 Israeli Uzi, but you cannot own the current fully automatic version of the Barrett M468 (you can own the “civilian” semi-automatic version).

Under federal law, private citizens are banned from owning machine guns made after 1986, and all fully automatic weapons must be registered with ATF.

But it doesn’t end there. You can’t even manufacture replacement parts for the pre-1986 automatics (ensuring that they will eventually wear out and ultimately cease to exist).

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Do yourself a favor and just stop talking about firearms and then 2nd Amendment. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. None.

Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist

With the proper FFL Licensing, anyone can own that Barret. It's done all the time. I can own them myself if I file the proper paperwork and get the proper licensing as a gun collector. That is the exception. You need to read the whole law instead of just the parts that back up the nonsense that you spew.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the so-called 'left' were as organized and unified as the self acclaimed 'rightist' firearms advocates seem to think, they would massively arm themselves, given all the saber rattling the 'gunners' do.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If the so-called 'left' were as organized and unified as the self acclaimed 'rightist' firearms advocates seem to think, they would massively arm themselves, given all the saber rattling the 'gunners' do.

What the so called right is doing is trying to instill fear. Nothing more. Take that fear away and they really don't have a message. That is their whole platform. Until a year or so ago, it won elections. Not anymore. Now we fear them more than we fear what they tell us we should fear. That's the way it usually works out. In the old days, you bring in a Marshal that works by making the bad guys fear him. In the end when the bad guys are gone, the town begins to fear him. At that point the Marshal has to go as he serves no real function anymore. So ends the reign of the Town Tamers.

 

[danielpalos]

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

You ignored the question.

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

I'm well aware that you operate on a completely different wavelength from most of the world.

The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

 

[danielpalos]

Both militia, the people, and the Concept of the security of a free State, are collective, not individual.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

There is no such thing as a “collective right”. All rights are individual rights. It’s just an indisputable fact no matter how much you scream otherwise.

The People means collective, civil rights, not natural, individual rights.

So the Founding Fathers were using the "Communist Manifesto" as a guide, Do you have a link?

.

Only in right wing, red herring fantasy. I don't need a link, Only a dictionary. Words have precise meaning. Only the right wing, never gets it. Coincidence, or conspiracy.

Listen closely. we are going to get our firearms from the free market but if you bastards somehow prevent us from accessing the free market then we will get them from the blackmarket.

We will not be disarmed,

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control; coincidence or unwell regulated, conspiracy?

 

[hadit]

Are you thus claiming that the 1st amendment is a collective right and you as an individual can have your speech curtailed by the government? "The people" have plenty of speech that they can exercise every time they vote. You, OTOH as an individual, do not need the freedom to write what you want in a public opinion board and therefore can be silenced. Only as a well regulated group are you allowed to speak publicly. After all, speech is more dangerous than are weapons.

Is that really where you want to go?

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

You ignored the question.

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

I'm well aware that you operate on a completely different wavelength from most of the world.

The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

 

[P@triot]

With the proper FFL Licensing, anyone can own that Barret. It's done all the time. I can own them myself if I file the proper paperwork and get the proper licensing as a gun collector. That is the exception. You need to read the whole law instead of just the parts that back up the nonsense that you spew.

Once again we see that the left is completely clueless about firearms and gun laws. Nobody - nobody - can own a fully automatic Barrett M468. You can own a 1938 Thompson Sub Machine Gun or a 1979 Israeli Uzi, but you cannot own the current fully automatic version of the Barrett M468 (you can own the “civilian” semi-automatic version).

Under federal law, private citizens are banned from owning machine guns made after 1986, and all fully automatic weapons must be registered with ATF.

But it doesn’t end there. You can’t even manufacture replacement parts for the pre-1986 automatics (ensuring that they will eventually wear out and ultimately cease to exist).

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Do yourself a favor and just stop talking about firearms and the 2nd Amendment. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. None.

Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist

 

[P@triot]

With the proper FFL Licensing, anyone can own that Barret.

Once again we see that the left is completely clueless about firearms and gun laws. It simply cannot be any more clear....

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

As the article states, the FFL only permits the manufacturing of the automatics for sale of the firearm to “qualified” state and federal agencies (ie other government departments). Since Barrett owns the intellectual property rights on the Barrett M468, the FFL would not allow you to manufacture them.

Do yourself a favor and just stop talking about firearms and the 2nd Amendment. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. None.

Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist

 

[P@triot]

If the so-called 'left' were as organized and unified as the self acclaimed 'rightist' firearms advocates seem to think, they would massively arm themselves, given all the saber rattling the 'gunners' do.

They can’t. They fear firearms (due to their ignorance of them).

 

[regent]

If the so-called 'left' were as organized and unified as the self acclaimed 'rightist' firearms advocates seem to think, they would massively arm themselves, given all the saber rattling the 'gunners' do.

They can’t. They fear firearms (due to their ignorance of them).

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

 

[P@triot]

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

Ah yes....force. The recurring theme of any progressive narrative. So just curious here - you advocate forcing anyone over the age of 18 to (and I quote) “take a course or two on firearms”? Including all progressives?

How do you think that will go over with your fellow fascists?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Absolutely nothing ends in catastrophic failure like left-wing policy...

Crime in the UK has spiraled out of control. There are no guns in the country, and yet the murder rate in London has now overtaken that of New York City. How can that be!? People were still hurting and killing each other, but they just moved on to doing it with knives.

They’re also confiscating — and this isn’t a joke — scissors, pliers, screwdrivers, hammers… anything AT ALL that might be used as a weapon. What’s next? A ban on hands and feet?

Yes...progressivism really is that stupid. Take away guns, people will kill with knives. Take away knives, people will kill with hammers. Take away hammers, people will kill with automobiles. Take away automobiles, people will strangle their victims to death. And all the while, the idiotic left-wing policies just set society back centuries.

Quick, hide the cutlery!

And just who is talking about taking away all the guns? Maybe from the mentally deranged. Well, the way you post that just might be you. Can't tell that without a shrink making that determination.

"If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ’em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here." - Senator Diane Feinstein

"Guns kill people, including children, and all guns need to be highly regulated and if possible removed from the hands of everyone except people in law enforcement." - Dan Agin, Huffington Post

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option." - Andrew Cuomo

"Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment." - Bret Stephens, the New York Times

"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment." - former Justice John Paul Stevens

I can keep going.

 

[hadit]

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

Ah yes....force. The recurring theme of any progressive narrative. So just curious here - you advocate forcing anyone over the age of 18 to (and I quote) “take a course or two on firearms”? Including all progressives?

How do you think that will go over with your fellow fascists?

Actually, I would have no problem with every high school graduate having gone through a course on how to render a found gun harmless instead of being taught to run screaming away. IOW, let's take a page from sex Ed and demystify guns to remove the terror.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

Ah yes....force. The recurring theme of any progressive narrative. So just curious here - you advocate forcing anyone over the age of 18 to (and I quote) “take a course or two on firearms”? Including all progressives?

How do you think that will go over with your fellow fascists?

Actually, I would have no problem with every high school graduate having gone through a course on how to render a found gun harmless instead of being taught to run screaming away. IOW, let's take a page from sex Ed and demystify guns to remove the terror.

Do they actually teach teenagers to run away screaming? I mean, elementary school, sure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

Ah yes....force. The recurring theme of any progressive narrative. So just curious here - you advocate forcing anyone over the age of 18 to (and I quote) “take a course or two on firearms”? Including all progressives?

How do you think that will go over with your fellow fascists?

Actually, I would have no problem with every high school graduate having gone through a course on how to render a found gun harmless instead of being taught to run screaming away. IOW, let's take a page from sex Ed and demystify guns to remove the terror.

Do they actually teach teenagers to run away screaming? I mean, elementary school, sure.

They sure do. They just tell them that their Grass Supplier is out of product. Works every time.

 

[hadit]

So if it is ignorance of firearms that causes the fear, and if the American people were forced to take a course or two on firearms they would not fear them anymore, right?

Ah yes....force. The recurring theme of any progressive narrative. So just curious here - you advocate forcing anyone over the age of 18 to (and I quote) “take a course or two on firearms”? Including all progressives?

How do you think that will go over with your fellow fascists?

Actually, I would have no problem with every high school graduate having gone through a course on how to render a found gun harmless instead of being taught to run screaming away. IOW, let's take a page from sex Ed and demystify guns to remove the terror.

Do they actually teach teenagers to run away screaming? I mean, elementary school, sure.

That's a sarcastic way of describing the general terror that the new presence of a gun seems to strike.

 

[danielpalos]

we are quibbling. The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

You ignored the question.

It is your fantasy, why don't You, run with it? You are simply, begging the question, as far as I am concerned.

I'm well aware that you operate on a completely different wavelength from most of the world.

The People is plural not Individual; they could have used, Persons, like in most State Constitutions, where natural and individual rights, are recognized and secured via Due Process.

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring.

the People and the Militia are Both, plural and collective, not singular or individual, every time we have to quibble.

 

[P@triot]

So the First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Got it.

That is Your red herring. the People and the Militia are Both, plural and collective, not singular or individual, every time we have to quibble.

Yes...people is plural because there is more than one U.S. citizen, chief. And the right belongs to each and every individual citizen.