I would like to see suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns removed from NFA registration. I would also like nationwide constitutional carry. Are you willing to compromise and just remove suppressors and short barreled rifles from the NFA? It’s a common sense request as it is really just an unjust tax on the poor. You should be more than willing to accept the compromise of removing just suppressors and short barreled rifles from NFA regulation. If you care about treating people equally under the law regardless of their economic means you should be all for this “compromise”. If you won’t accept this compromise, you hate poor people and support oppression of the less fortunate. Anyone with any common sense would support this compromise. What could I say to “compromise” in your mind?
Am I understanding your argument correctly? Are you saying you support state’s rights to implement slavery or deny people a trial by jury of their peers?
Compromise means your side gets a little something and our side gets a little something. In your scenario, our side gets nothing. Don't say, "you get to keep your guns", because we already have that.
The political 'compromise' game as always been this. Start with the 'extreme', and move a few clicks to 'unreasonable', and claim a compromise, and then scream that the other party won't compromise. It's how this country has moved to the position it's in.
No gun owner I know opposes these laws 1) state or municipal laws or ordinances that prohibit the discharge of firearms in open public areas where such firing would be unsafe such as in cities, municipal parks etc 2) bans on carrying firearms in jails, courthouses, parole offices etc 3) prohibitions on minors buying or carrying firearms unsupervised 4) laws that criminalize or enhance penalties for using firearms to facilitate a crime of violence 5) prohibitions on those who are on probation or under indictment for violent felonies possessing firearms
3: No reason my 17yr old shouldn't be able to take himself and his slug gun into the woods to shoot Bambi. 5: On the fence. If you're too dangerous to have a gun you;re too dangerous to be on the street.
Because we have serious regulations on ownership, sale, arbitrary restrictions by type including barrel length or angle of grip etc. We're in the middle. No guns ___________________ US______________________ No restrictions. _____________________________^________________________^ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We are here xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We should be here
You want zero restrictions on guns? So anyone of any age and any background should be able to buy any type of weapon they want at any time? Correct?
If they're not currently seized under the 4th amendment either by being imprisoned for a crime a jury of their peers found them guilty of BARD or under guardianship because they are not in their right mind either due to infancy or infirmity? Yes. If that bothers you: Imprison people who are guilty of dangerous crimes or kill them and encourage parents to take steps to legally incapacitate their children who should be legally incapacitated because they are criminally insane.
So you are wanting children to be deemed legally incapacitated by our court systems by their parents otherwise they can buy a weapon at any age? Your position is more insane than people that want to ban weapons completely. Jesus
It seemed fine back in the 1950’s! The firearm homicide rate when anyone could buy a weapon delivered to their door without documentation or background check was less than half what it is today!
Children are already deemed incapacitated and require parental involvement to possess or own a firearm: Infancy. Infancy is a legal term of art meaning not an adult. In the US you're an adult at 18. Before that, your parent is your guardian and essentially controls your life. I'm pointing out that if your child turns 18 and they're criminally insane torturing animals and attacking the general public, you should have them committed because they're criminally insane and its your literal duty as their parent to prevent them from harming themselves and others since they're CRIMINALLY INSANE. See how what I said has all those caveats and what you said doesn't? See how that changes the meaning? See how words are important? Anything else I can help you with?
The US population in 1950 was half of what it is today Guns haven’t changed, society has — and unless someone has a viable idea to solve the issues we are facing besides more guns we will eventually go the way of most nations.
I specifically asked about children to which you chimes in with an affirmative. The only think you can help with is adding those caveats to your initial posts so they seem less insane.
I’m talking about the 1968 Gun Control Act, not the NFA. Prior to the GCA there were no FFLs and anyone could purchase or sell firearms. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act
You specifically asked about children and I told you they were incapacitated by reason on infancy. Something that was explained in the first post you questioned. Clearly. Explicitly. To someone who can read english. Can you? Adult children (ie your get who reach the age of 18 or more) who show signs of criminal insanity should be committed if they are CRIMINALLY INSANE. The only thing you can help with is READING what's actually written instead of your silly little strawman.
Any could purchase or sell firearms that were not regulated under the NFA and so required a tax stamp that was cost equivalent in the 30's of 5k today.
Umm…homicide RATES account for population changes. That’s the point of using RATES as opposed to INCIDENTS. Of course guns haven’t changed, yes society has. We can address those changes or not. But we can’t just adopt unconstitutional authoritarianism because we don’t want to be responsible for our actions.
Yes, the NFA put a $200 tax on purchase of automatic weapons and suppressors. No data nationwide exists for that era I’m aware of to compare to the post 1950’s era, but I’m open to any someone may have.
