Gov't gives thugs AR's, but not US Citizens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Smurfslayer
- Start date
- Status
RevDisk
Member
Bit of a cop out, don't you think? There are somewhere around 150-170k full autos on the NFA registry. Not sure how many fall in what catagory of weapon. Just for the sake of argument, let's say there are 50k assault rifles on the registry. That means a maximum of 50,000 people can own these weapons. No more, and guarenteed to be far less.
NFA transferable autos are still allowed because ex facto laws are illegal. Or should be. Congress seems to ignore that more than they should. (Once is more than they should.)
I personably believe they are allowed as a release valve. Hence an entire catagory is not banned, just "properly regulated".
Folks with influence and cash can still buy 'em, they're just not practical for the average Joe who buys firearms with their limited budget.
By the letter of the law, you're right. Practical wise, not really. Paying ten or twenty times the real cost of the weapon is not a legal ban, but it sure as heck is a de facto ban.
Not at all. The poster said we were prohibited from owning fully automatic assault rifles, I was simply pointing out that is not true. It's still not true, regardless of how you try to spin it.
If it's factual - please post citations in the law that support it.
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
Let's go further here and put it in its proper context, shall we?
It's not the "average joe" they're worried about buying weapons. It's poor people and racial minorities. Always has been, always will be. The Democratic Party has simply become the best at running slick advertising campaigns to make it be about crime, and the "proles" are generally the group they fear most, and therefore desire to have the most control over.
It's not rich white guys they're worried about. That's why FA is still affordable to that demographic.
Sistema1927
Member
Some things never change. Wasn't it Joseph Stalin who said something to the effect that we would sell him the rope that he would hang us with?
Sindawe
Member
That was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Stalin had a comment about one death being a tragedy, a million deaths being a statistic, IIRC.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Don't try to confuse folks with facts; it makes their heads hurt.
Trying to claim that present laws do not ban the ownership of fully automatic assault weapons is technically true. Claiming that statements that the law is a ban is 'spin' is awfully ironic. The true spin is that law that increase the price of some weapons 2000% is not a defacto ban...even though upper middle class and wealthy people can still afford them. (Hint: look up the percentage of the population that can reasonably be expected to have the financial ability to afford such a purchase. I think that law and policy that makes a particular item too costly for 90% of the population to purchase is a de facto ban even if not technically a ban de jure.)
I don't have a problem with the government trying to further it foreign policy arims with weapon supply. That's a carrot. But the government needs to use a stick, too. PA policemen kill Israelis with them and suddenly a cruise missile flies into a PA police station. The next day; the State Department suggests to the PA that controlling their policemen would go far in helping the US in controlling flights of their Tomahawks. Oh yeah, to be sure of getting a good return on investment; hit a large police station at shift change. Remember, President Bush doesn't want to use a 2 million dollar missile on a tent. I agree.
It was Lenin. What's the point? Based on subsequent events, it's safe to state that Lenin and his Bolsheviks failed to correctly analyze the forces of history. That statement simply illustrates another example of their failure of analysis and critical thinking.
Sistema1927
Member
The point being that we don't value our security enough to be wise in our dealings. Whether it is valuing our trade with oppressive regimes more than our security, or providing weapons to the PA, the end result is the same.
Free trade is great just so long as it doesn't provide our enemies with the tools to destroy us.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
OK. Might want to try to find a different quotation to illustrate your premise. In light of the dissolution of the USSR and the utter failure of communism worldwide, that one isn't up to the job of supporting your stance. It would better support the premise that it's ok to sell anything to idiots that they can pay for...they'll still be idiots.
Provide the PA with all kinds of small arms and then go about the business of teaching them the cost of misusing them. Wind up with more responsible people in charge. Survivors. Don't try to prevent folks from being your enemy. Identify them as an enemy and find a way to make them a friend. If that proves to be impossible...kill them.
Smurfslayer
Member
still a problem...
Rick_reno was right... I should've clarified that they're giving new produciton automatic weapons to terrorists... We can't have them (yes, we can have pre May '86 transferrables).
I couldn't care less what happens to the P.A. I do care that if those thugs are being GIVEN automatic rifles, where's mine?
Rick_reno was right... I should've clarified that they're giving new produciton automatic weapons to terrorists... We can't have them (yes, we can have pre May '86 transferrables).
I couldn't care less what happens to the P.A. I do care that if those thugs are being GIVEN automatic rifles, where's mine?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked