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

[2aguy]

They could use specific language to identify ARs and AKs just as the law does for machine guns, short barreled shotguns and silencers etc.

Why?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

They need to define them correctly first, guns sold to the public may look like assault weapons but aren't anything close to those used by the military, swat, and other tactical units.

Most shrieking anti-gun democrats in congress don’t even know anything about the guns they’re trying to ban, nor do they know the history of assault weapons bans that didn’t do anything in the 90’s-00’s or the data surrounding which guns kill the most people.

They know nothing. They probably say AR-47 and AK-15

 

[Leo123]

That is what I was thinking. The Federal Firearms Act could be overturned if it were expanded to include simple semi-auto rifles.

 

[Missourian]

If they did that, it would open the whole act up for being overturned by SCOTUS when the inevitable lawsuits make it that far.

I'm not seeing a downside...

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Yes please!
In doing so it will allow the USSC to strike the entire law!

 

[BoostedHayabusa]

can someone define "amend"

No one gets this thread. I'm not pushing to outlaw anything, it is a discussion of the National Firearms Act and why the Democrats never bring it up when they beat the drums for banning assault weapons.

you are dealing with the uneducated. These people isn't smart....

 

[MarathonMike]

semi auto covers a lot of weapons, not just ARs, I have a shotgun that shoots 10 rounds and is semi auto

There is no language in the NFA about "semi-auto". I am saying IF you are sincere about making a law specifically about ARs then SPECIFY it in the NFA as an amendment to the NFA. It already covers very specific weapons like short barreled shotguns.

 

[MarathonMike]

Why?

The point I'm making is the Democrats are not sincere about making a law about banning ARs. If they were, an amendment to the NFA would be the obvious place to do that. They just want a hot button issue that they can wail about every time some nut goes on a shooting spree with an AR.

 

[MarathonMike]

Actually, the Title II amendment to the NFA DOES have language about semi-autos specific to Glock pistol modifications. I stand corrected. The original NFA language did not.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Sorry, but we live in a democracy so it is unlikely to happen. A ban on these weapons is far more likely. Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban, a poll found. Including a majority of Republicans.

I amazes me how people can be so in their bubble they have no clue what the average American thinks.

Constitutional Republic not a Democracy and that's why I can tell those who support a ban to go fuck themselves because shall not be infringed.

If you loons want to do this the legal way call for a Convention and vote on it, oh that's right you know it has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the 2/3rds you need. So it will always be the illegal, unconstitutional way.

 

[alang1216]

Constitutional Republic not a Democracy and that's why I can tell those who support a ban to go fuck themselves because shall not be infringed.

All rights are 'infringed' in some way or another. None are absolute.

If you loons want to do this the legal way call for a Convention and vote on it, oh that's right you know it has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the 2/3rds you need. So it will always be the illegal, unconstitutional way.

Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban so you should recheck your math.

 

[2aguy]

All rights are 'infringed' in some way or another. None are absolute.


Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban so you should recheck your math.

The people responding to that poll don't understand the lies you idiots have told them about rifles and AR-15s...so those polls are really fucking stupid.

Lying is all you have...so your democrat party media outlets lie about the gun issues, then you ask the people you just lied to what they think, and they respond with the lies you told them.....

So sell that bullshit to biden voters....

 

[Dadoalex]

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

Find a dozen GOP Senators who will go along and it's a doe deal in the Senate.
You'll need a dozen or so GOP votes in the House as well.

Good luck with that.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

All rights are 'infringed' in some way or another. None are absolute.


Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban so you should recheck your math.

The 2nd is very clear on firearms and the right to bear them shall not be infringed, you have a comprehension problem. It takes a vote of 2/3rds of States calling for a Convention to change the Constitution or a vote by 2/3rds of Congress none of those are going to happen.

Any bans are unconstitutional and should be ignored by any law abiding citizen who will not give up their rights.

 

[alang1216]

The people responding to that poll don't understand the lies you idiots have told them about rifles and AR-15s...so those polls are really fucking stupid.

Lying is all you have...so your democrat party media outlets lie about the gun issues, then you ask the people you just lied to what they think, and they respond with the lies you told them.....

So sell that bullshit to biden voters....

I'm impressed. Are you smarter or just better educated than 75% of Americans? Too bad you live in a democracy and may not always get to decide what is allowed and what is not.

 

[alang1216]

The 2nd is very clear on firearms and the right to bear them shall not be infringed, you have a comprehension problem. It takes a vote of 2/3rds of States calling for a Convention to change the Constitution or a vote by 2/3rds of Congress none of those are going to happen.

The 2nd is hardly clear, that is why it took 200 years before the SCOTUS decided it was an individual right and didn't apply to a militia. God didn't give you the right to own an AR-15, government gave you that right, and what government gives today it can take away tomorrow. The intransigence of the NRA and gun-nuts (you know who you are) are only making more gun controls more likely. Keep up the good work.

Any bans are unconstitutional and should be ignored by any law abiding citizen who will not give up their rights.

SCOTUS decides constitutionality not you.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

 

[M14 Shooter]

All rights are 'infringed' in some way or another. None are absolute.

Correct.
Under cerain condition, blacks in the US can be held as slaves.

Only 23 percent of all voters oppose an assault weapons ban so you should recheck your math.

So?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm impressed. Are you smarter or just better educated than 75% of Americans? Too bad you live in a democracy and may not always get to decide what is allowed and what is not.

News:
Under our system of government, the majority - necessarily and intentionally - does not always rule.

 

[M14 Shooter]

God didn't give you the right to own an AR-15, government gave you that right...

More evidence that you do not understand out system of government.

and what government gives today it can take away tomorrow.

Those are called "privileges", not rights.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

And yet, every regulation in question before the court in, and since, Heller has been overturned; none have been upheld.

SCOTUS decides constitutionality - not you.

 

[alang1216]

Correct.
Under cerain condition, blacks in the US can be held as slaves.

I only know about our penal system, is there another 'condition'?

So?

I was merely pointing out to ThunderKiss1965 that 75% is generally considered to be more than 2/3.