Uncle joey came through.....................

[BCR#1]

Another check, another toy. My wife kindly donated her's to the cause of freedom as she was able to secure a free beach front condo for next week in Florida for her and kiddo. FN 509 Tactical w/ Holosun 508T RD on the left. On the right is my 509 /RMR 06 used for practical pistol shooting. I had enough left for a bullet order from RMR.

Bill

 

[Nature Boy]

That is what I still don't understand. What is this gun for? If you just want it because you want it, say so

Want > Need when it comes to firearm purchases and it's a personal choice. This is often discussed here on THR, in those terms. He wanted it for any number of reasons or no reason at all. He paid for it. He owns it. He exercised his freedom. That says it all and nothing else needs to be said.

 

[Monac]

Want > Need when it comes to firearm purchases and it's a personal choice. This is often discussed here on THR, in those terms. He wanted it for any number of reasons or no reason at all. He paid for it. He owns it. He exercised his freedom. That says it all and nothing else needs to be said.

I understand that, Nature Boy. But that makes it difficult to explain to anyone why someone wants a gun that violates the spirit of the National Firearms Act of 1934 while carefully obeying the letter of the law. They generally want to know what practical purpose it serves that other guns do not. That is what I wanted to know.

BTW, I have avoided this thread because I do not want to be drawn into an argument about these guns. The explanation Nature Boy gives is sufficient for me.

 

[Nature Boy]

The explanation Nature Boy gives is sufficient for me.

I appreciate that and thank you.

Freedom is a precious thing. We shouldn’t put limits on it just because what someone else wants doesn’t make sense based on our wants or needs.

“who needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds”

“who needs a ‘weapon of war’ who’s only purpose is to kill people”

“who needs a car that drives more than 70 miles an hour and runs on carbon”

“who needs more than one electric car when the nearest bus/subway/train is xxx away”

“Who needs a house that’s xxxx sq ft for less than yy people”

“Who needs (fill in the blank)”

 

[Monac]

Yes, freedom is a precious thing. What that has to to with these guns that are "pistols" only as an evasion of the spirit of the NFA I don't understand. You seem to be arguing that people should not be required to justify what they want. Your examples do NOT involve violating the spirit of any law, so they are irrelevant.

You have not otherwise explained the justification for violating the spirit of the NFA with these so-called pistols, but then again, I did not ask you to. I said was willing to accept the explanation you had already given, so I am not sure why your wrote this.

Also, it seems to me that your argument is a justification for people being allowed to own pretty much anything they want. If you are not arguing for an unlimited right, then the whole question becomes one of what the limitations should be. That is exactly the issue here.

The limitations of the 1934 NFA have not been considered unduly onerous for 85 years. Encouraging its re-writing by defying its spirit while following its letter seems like a bad idea to me right now, but that is merely an opinion.

 

[Nature Boy]

You seem to be arguing that people should not be required to justify what they want.

You are correct. That’s exactly what I’m saying

 

[tallpaul]

The limitations of the 1934 NFA have not been considered unduly onerous for 85 years. Encouraging its re-writing by defying its spirit while following its letter seems like a bad idea to me right now, but that is merely an opinion.

depends who you ask about the onerous or not... many do believe it was... and is and according to the constitution it is...

 

[Monac]

You are correct. That’s exactly what I’m saying

Well, if you are going to stake out that kind of absolutist position, the discussion is over. The people who want hand grenades for self-defense and Stinger missiles to oppose tyranny agree with you. So would David Hahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

 

[Monac]

depends who you ask about the onerous or not... many do believe it was... and is and according to the constitution it is...

Oh really? Has the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional? They have had 85 years in which to do that. Not to be rude, but it is their judgement that matters, not yours. As for whether it is onerous, well, that is an opinion. It does not seem to me to be shared by a majority, not even a majority of gun owners, but that is just my opinion as well.

 

[tallpaul]

Oh really? Has the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional? They have had 85 years in which to do that. Not to be rude, but it is their judgement that matters, not yours. As for whether it is onerous, well, that is an opinion. It does not seem to me to be shared by a majority, not even a majority of gun owners, but that is just my opinion as well.

well apparently your definition of shall not be infringed is different than the meaning in simple English...and many may not care because they do not want this or that or even like a particular gun but it doesn't change the facts of the language...

 

[Monac]

well apparently your definition of shall not be infringed is different than the meaning in simple English...and many may not care because they do not want this or that or even like a particular gun but it doesn't change the facts of the language...

Talllpaul, if the case is as simple as you say, then how has this law stood for 85 years? If the argument against it is this clear cut, why wasn't it gone by 1935?

 

[tallpaul]

Talllpaul, if the case is as simple as you say, then how has this law stood for 85 years? If the argument against it is this clear cut, why wasn't it gone by 1935?

like I said the language is clear and simple... liberals and feel good feelings of doing good by politicians is why it has stood-like in Germany no onecried or stood when it was not them being affected.... there in not one legit reason why SBR/Shotuns or suppressors should be restricted other than the fear of the leaders spreading fear as they are today... it is simple but those in charge would have you believe otherwise- and apparently you have bought into the lies...along with many.

 

[Monac]

like I said the language is clear and simple... liberals and feel good feelings of doing good by politicians is why it has stood-like in Germany no onecried or stood when it was not them being affected.... there in not one legit reason why SBR/Shotuns or suppressors should be restricted other than the fear of the leaders spreading fear as they are today... it is simple but those in charge would have you believe otherwise- and apparently you have bought into the lies...along with many.

I think I understand where you are coming from much better now, tallpaul, and I won't bother you anymore.

 

[tallpaul]

I think I understand where you are coming from much better now, tallpaul, and I won't bother you anymore.

I follow the rules as they are- I have stamps for what I own...no desire to go to jail over such things but it does not mean those "laws" are rightous or should ever have been enacted...

 

[Nature Boy]

Well, if you are going to stake out that kind of absolutist position, the discussion is over. The people who want hand grenades for self-defense and Stinger missiles to oppose tyranny agree with you. So would David Hahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

You went from the OP’s purchase of a legal to own AR pistol to an absurd comparison of illegal to own hand grenades and stinger missiles.

 

[Monac]

You went from the OP’s purchase of a legal to own AR pistol to an absurd comparison of illegal to own hand grenades and stinger missiles.

This is what I went from:

Me: You seem to be arguing that people should not be required to justify what they want.
You:You are correct. That’s exactly what I’m saying

That is, I based my remark on you saying people should have anything they want, at least when it comes to weapons. Do you want to walk that back now?

 

[Gordon]

I think the "spirit" of the 1934 law was BS political feel good and a violation of the " spirit " of the second amendment.

 

[tallpaul]

Well, if you are going to stake out that kind of absolutist position, the discussion is over. The people who want hand grenades for self-defense and Stinger missiles to oppose tyranny agree with you. So would David Hahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

a hand grenade and a missle are not firearms are they... and to bring the reference to david hahn further shows your ignorance

 

[Pudge]

Oh really? Has the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional? They have had 85 years in which to do that. Not to be rude, but it is their judgement that matters, not yours. As for whether it is onerous, well, that is an opinion. It does not seem to me to be shared by a majority, not even a majority of gun owners, but that is just my opinion as well.

You seem to have gone from advocating the "spirit" of a legal document's intent to advocating the application of the letter of the law. The spirit of the 2A is pretty clear.

That said, where do you draw the line between compliance with the law and skirting the intent? Is a 16" barrel on a rifle that just barely meets the requirement of the law an attack on the law's spirit?

 

[Monac]

a hand grenade and a missle are not firearms are they... and to bring the reference to david hahn further shows your ignorance

Now you are splitting hairs. They are both military arms, and someone who believes in the true, simple meaning of the Second Amendment, such as you claim to, would regard them as such the instant he wanted either or both and was told he could not have them. Any militia obviously requires them in order to have an effective existence. I am disappointed that you would resort to such nit-picking simply to score debating points, rather than standing up for all of your rights, such as you claim them to be. For shame.

 

[Monac]

I think the "spirit" of the 1934 law was BS political feel good and a violation of the " spirit " of the second amendment.

I am glad to know that, and many in this thread obviously agree with you, at least about the spirit of the Second Amendment. Your opinion will, of course. become much more meaningful once you are a member of the Supreme Court. Perhaps recent appointees to the Court also agree with you; once again, I suggest that if you or others are so certain that you are right, you should find out via a test case. If money were no problem - and with the support you would enjoy from fellow gun owners, and modern Internet-based financing methods, why should there be? - then why not?

 

[Monac]

You seem to have gone from advocating the "spirit" of a legal document's intent to advocating the application of the letter of the law. The spirit of the 2A is pretty clear.

That said, where do you draw the line between compliance with the law and skirting the intent? Is a 16" barrel on a rifle that just barely meets the requirement of the law an attack on the law's spirit?

I don't know why you say what you do about me advocating something about something. Could you make it more clear?

What I am saying here is that these so-called "pistols", which are actually carbines, violate the spirit of the National Firearms Act WITHOUT violating its letter. My only problem with them is that by so doing, they are giving a concrete reason for re-writing the NFA. Do you really think that is a good idea? No one ever answers that specific question - they keep going off on tangents. Is it a good idea to awaken this sleeping dog?

Oh, and once again, I ask why, if the intent of the Second Amendment is so clear, and the unconstitutionality of the NFA of 1934 is so self-evident, why has no one gotten it overturned in the 85 years since it was passed? Here too, no one has answered the question; they have simply ignored it.

I am really tired of this. I admit the legality of these "pistols". I admit the NFA may be unconstitutional. I make no claims about whether it is a good law or a bad one. Yet people make extravagant claims about their ability to interpret the Constitution, and about their rights to own any weapon they desire. I like to deal with facts and reality, and this discussion keeps rocketing off into the world of abstract theory. Believe whatever you want to believe. My point from the beginning has been about the real-world consequences of these guns. Maybe they are such a small niche that they don't have any, but if that's what you think, please say so. I don't need more opinions about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

 

[Trey Veston]

PSA is still listing this firearm on their website as in stock and available for $829. Not seeing how a used one for $900 is a good deal?

https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa...ght-m-lok-moe-ept-sba3-pistol-5165448567.html

Unless it came with an expensive optic?

 

[entropy]

What I am saying here is that these so-called "pistols", which are actually carbines, violate the spirit of the National Firearms Act WITHOUT violating its letter.

Well if that is what you want, be sure to support your local Communists; your corner of the State is full of them. If no one wanted to get around laws or regulations, we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

As for 'violating the spirit of the NFA', products and processes are developed to skirt .gov regulations (because that's what the NFA is, not statutes) of all types every day. Lawn Mowers. Building thermostats. Ad nauseum. Why are you so hot under the collar about this particular one?

Reframed, it can be thought of this way- If braced AR's are not regulated, why should SBR AR's be, since they are very similar? Does a $200 tax paid make an SBR that much safer, or more effective? (or less?)

If the Powers That Be thought they could sweep everything similar into the NFA, or just outright ban it, they would have done so by now. Bear in mind the the NFA originally included handguns-all handguns. Not just semi-autos. That didn't fly because too many Congressmen and friends ($$) of Congressmen in 1934 owned pistols and wanted to keep owning them. So they picked on the 'exotic'- SBR's, SBS's MG's, things that few people owned, and contrary to popular thought, the criminals that did use them more often got them from raiding NG and AR Armories than buying them at Hardware Hank.

I'll close with a paraphrase of a quote, and an actual quote;

First they came for the machine guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own a machine gun.

Then they came for the "Saturday Night Specials, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not own a "Saturday Night Special" .

Then they came for the AR style rifles, and I did not speak out-
Because I did not own an AR style rifle.

Then they came for my single shot .22—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Paraphrased from Martin Niemöller


And one from a Founding Father;

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin.

Some gun owners are their own worst enemies, and they hide it, even from themselves, in false moral superiority.

 

[BCR#1]

This is the correct firearm that I bought and OOS. https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa...ght-m-lok-moe-ept-sba3-pistol-5165449599.html

Bill