Is there anything to this "nfa repeal via lawsuit" talk going around or are people just trying to clickbait shit to run their mouths
Is there anything to this "nfa repeal via lawsuit" talk going around or are people just trying to clickbait shit to run their mouths
>people just trying to clickbait shit to run their mouths
yeah
Honestly, the best solution to deal with the NFA is to get SBRs, SBSs, Suppressors, and AOWs off of it. Not worth the hassle of dealing with congress to get it repealed. That would require for all of the planets and the stars to align, dianne feinstein to start pushing daisies, and when pigs fly.
>dianne feinstein to start pushing daisies,
In all seriousness, she won't be in office much longer. Notice how she's never in the news any more? There have been rumors going around about her declining mentally, forgetting simple things and people's names and stuff.
The DNC is probably already grooming a carbon copy replacement for her.
A carbon copy with none of the political experience and zero power. The DNC is dead. They just don't know it yet.
They don't need "political experience" to vote as they're told.
Yeah, her Daughter.
Biden's still in office and he can't even complete a sentence.
Ding dong
The Heller opinion strongly suggests SBS are not 2a protected:
>We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
>weapons not typically possessed by law abiding citizens
Gee, I wonder why short barrelled shotguns, a weapon heavily regulated, is not commonly possessed by common citizens.
The popularity of totally-not-shotguns like the shockwave suggests that there is a demand among civilians for these guns.
Well yeah it's kind of circular.
>the 2a protects weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes
>almost nobody possesses them because they're already banned
>therefore the 2a doesn't protect them
Personally I really didn't like the basis of the ruling, "historical custom" is a shitty fricking standard and really arbitrary. They should have just said
>militia flavor stuff is irrelevant just a turn of phrase at the time
>"bear arms" means it only applies to small arms, so no you don't get icbms
>otherwise it's Strict Scrutiny
And that's that, there is lots of jurisprudence on applying strict scrutiny. Government could definitely defend machine guns and destructive device restrictions under that standard, but all the short barreled bullshit and suppressors and AOW would be right out. None of that is based in anything, let alone carefully tailored to the least restrictive means. I don't think magazine capacity bans would survive either.
SCOTUS could also have implemented a time check, along the lines of justice delayed is justice denied. Even if it's not unreasonable for there to be some checks, there is absolutely no good reason they shouldn't be objective and FAST. If the government wants to do something often it can, but it should 100% be the government's responsibility to accomplish it fast. Minutes, not months. All the normal checks should be fully automated. Court system in general should hold the government way tighter on that, that getting some paperwork (not just guns at all, building permits for that matter) can drag on unnecessarily for YEARS is wrong. It happens because legislators like to pass shit and then NOT PAY FOR IT properly. That shouldn't be allowed. If it's not worth it to the public to cover the cost upfront, then it shouldn't be law at all.
>"bear arms" means it only applies to small arms
But that's bogus since it also pertained to canons.
The armys "small arms repair" MOS includes howitzers.
And yet the ATF, coast guard, and most judges would probably object if I tried to put a bofors 57mm on a fishing trawler.
Free men don't ask, what's the judge gonna do? You have a Bofors.
>And yet the ATF, coast guard, and most judges would probably object if I tried to put a bofors 57mm on a fishing trawler.
Inform them that there could possibly be chinese vessels illegally fishing in local waters and thats why it's necessary.
Actually I'm pretty sure that would be legal so long as it was semiautomatic and registered as a destructive device (along with each shell)
Impractical and expensive yes, illegal...no? There's definitely legally owned 57mm cannons, like the 57mm M1 AT gun.
>strict scrutiny
Read Dobbs vs Jackson. It's clear there are justices who don't like strict scrutiny + substantive due process. Why not? Because they allow the courts to make up new rights out of nothing, merely for political reasons. This is why Big Daddy CT is trying to promote a new standard, initially with 2a but presumably which the court could extend to 1a.
CT is 99% a homosexual and I hope his efforts to nuke the 1A and enable more censorship fail. Also
>out of nothing
I also absolutely fricking hate how even """"textualists"""" completely blow off the 9th Amendment. The entire fricking reason, spelled out by the Founders repeatedly, that they initially didn't include any enumerated rights was because they were worried authoritarians would immediately claim that anything that wasn't included wasn't a right, when the whole foundation of government was supposed to be the opposite: anything not explicitly enumerated to THE GOVERNMENT is a right of the people. Power from the bottom not the top. They went and straight up codified it. But no sure enough courts have done exactly that. And now SCOTUS is going entire the wrong way giving the government powers it shouldn't have. That maybe they'll also make things a little better for the 2A is just partisan and could promptly be reversed if the balance shifts again since stare decis is dead.
Guess we'll see how it plays out and I'd sure enjoy seeing the NFA neutered, but nah I'm not actually delighted how they're going about it and I fully expect to see the pendulum swing right back in the next 30 years.
The 1792 Alien and Naturalization Law was very much the same. The founders warned us about literally everything that's hurting us right now.
>The founders warned us about literally everything that's hurting us right now.
It's really a shame they didn't have the foresight to imagine how money and perception of power would corrupt our system.
It's also a shame they didn't have the foresight to write out laws for a 5th grade reading level, but our founders were educated men and today's politicians aren't.
>But how many people would own, say, a giggle-switch AR just because they can and so they can occasionally magdump a d-50?
If the NFA were thrown out tomorrow I would convert my applicable hardware immediately.
>I feel when the pendulum swings back around in 30 years we'll have some sort of horrible balkanization going on.
I'm imagining Florida declaring war on Georgia for corn. Minnesota declaring war on Wisconsin for beer.
>It's also a shame they didn't have the foresight to write out laws for a 5th grade reading level, but our founders were educated men and today's politicians aren't.
So true trips king.
Also if the NFA were thrown out, gunsmiths would be getting a huge uptick in business for predictable reasons.
>I'm imagining Florida declaring war on Georgia for corn.
Florida will secede first with Georgia for reasons that nobody could possibly comprehend, I love that god damned state.
Where do you read up on the history of our great nation in these neutered and censored ties, I'd liek to educate myself more on it, and other nations, but sources are shakey at best.
>Guess we'll see how it plays out and I'd sure enjoy seeing the NFA neutered, but nah I'm not actually delighted how they're going about it and I fully expect to see the pendulum swing right back in the next 30 years.
If we do see an abolition of the NFA and automatics back on the table in genuine, I feel when the pendulum swings back around in 30 years we'll have some sort of horrible balkanization going on.
>in 30 years we'll have some sort of horrible balkanization going on
they said that 30 years ago
and 30 years befora that too
two more weeks until the US balkanizes
Ehhh I'm inclined to agree with this, honestly. I think certain states take a lot of heat on the social level (Cali, NY, Texas) but we're all fricking riled up, pissed off, bored or sexually frustrated at all times anyway without it being a state vs state thing. We're polarized as all fricking get-out though. (i.e. "Democrat" vs "Republican")
the Hughes Amendment and let new machine guns be sold just like any other NFA firearm
I was actually thinking about this specifically yesterday. With the US Military now playing with that 6-point-whatever fricking long-range AP rifle cartridge, why the frick can't the 1986 bullshit be brought up a few decades? There's a metric shitton of guns which now exist that didn't exist 36 years ago.
If George Washington were alive today he'd for sure allow us to own all fors of military grade hardware, things like mounted 50 cals and icbms too, but there would probably be some sort of militia requirement or pre requisite because I don't think he ever imagined we'd have access to magic tier weapons.
The one valid argument that gun grabbers should use, but never bring up is how military activity has changed due to weapon advances.
In the late 1700's, it wasn't necessary to have a standing army under a centralized government. You could have a bunch of dudes with rifles and a richgay with cannons defend a state. You can't do that under current conditions. Weaponry and transportation advances have changed how fighting works.
I wish that we didn't need to have a standing army, but our level of technology necessitates it.
Wrong, he'd put everyone who needed it to the sword and it wouldn't matter who owned ICBMs.
NFA tax and paperwork should just be filed upfront at the FFL upon receiving the firearm and passing the NICS check. There’s no reason why you have to wait several months to get your firearm out of NFA jail just because the feds make you pass the same background check twice before you can take possession of your property.
Pic unrelated but frick jannies.
nice pic, FRICK /k/ mods and jannie homosexualS
A gun law general could save a lot of clutter on the catalogue.
>gun law general
sneed
>2022
>/k/ is STILL the easiest board to troll
>no, no my fellows im merely pretending
>Friendly Reminder: /k/ is a board devoted to weapons and military equipment.
>Discussions about politics or current events belong on /misc/.
Discussing an 88-year-old law is neither political nor a current event, so get fricked. Btw I report all Ukraine threads. :^)
Sweaty, legislature is politics.
That’s like saying talking about speed limits on PrepHole is discussing politics. /misc/ is not even supposed to be a board for politics. It’s called “politically incorrect” so people can discuss politically incorrect topics.
Gun law discussions aren't allowed on /k/, simple as.
Says it right there on the front page.
No one cares, kys.
>Btw I report all Ukraine threads
god damn based
have a nice day homosexual.
>every law has political aspects, therefore all discussion of laws must occur in /misc/
while you're technically right, I can get banned on PrepHole for racism regularly, so frick you im not following the frickin rules Black person.
Having gun control threads would be fricking great
>Having gun control threads would be fricking great
IT would help consdiering when I loko for gun information the internet sucks, and so I come here to find anything of value and half the time it's 7 threads being constantly deleted and I have to scrape info.
It's a pain in the ass that gun information is so hard to come by, because of that I missed being able to help open carry be l;egalized in florida.
The clear rationale is simply this:
1. the people have the right to keep and bear arms
2. the purpose of this right is so that they can organise into a militia to defend the freedom of the state
3. this purpose is in some ways less relevant today - militias are not an effective defence against state aggression
4. in other ways this purpose is still relevant - militias are an effective deterrent against tyranny
5. the right exists regardless of whether the purpose makes sense and is or is not relevant.
6. considering the purpose, the people referred to are clearly a category of individuals and not specific individuals
7. however, if too many specific individuals within that category are onerously prevented from owning firearms then the category is as well
8. therefore the individually held portion of the collective right must not be onerously restricted for people within that category
10. considering the purpose, arms are weapons which would be used in a militia setting to defeat organised aggression by a state
11. this would mean weapons like machineguns and cannons ought not be restricted, but less relevant weapons like handguns can be restricted as handguns are not effective weapons in an organised mass conflict
12. considering the purpose, keeping means owning in such a way as to have ready access to them whenever needed and bearing means being able to carry them in such a manner as to respond to organised aggression - e.g. protesting with weapons.
The problem with this rationale is that it does not lead to an individual right to concealed carry a handgun into a school.
This is why textualism is such a meme. Sticking rigidly to the original context of the document puts you in the absurd place of hypothesising about a fantasy war where the Brits invade and the American army has disappeared into the ether.
Basically the whole fricking thing needs to be rewritten.
>2. the purpose of this right is so that they can organise into a militia to defend the freedom of the state
I don't agree with this. If you read up on law around that time, doing
>"some sort of statement, followed by the actual rule"
was a very common popular way of phrasing laws. It's the latter part though that is actually supposed to matter. The 2A could say
>Benjamin Franklin being known to enjoy nude sunbathing after his swim, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
and it'd have the same meaning. The founders had a lot of stuff in mind for the 2A, remember this was a point in our history where wild animals, indians, and so on were real threats not just militaries. Hunting was utterly vital for many people's food sources, this was a long time before modern industrialized advanced agriculture. Government was often very, VERY far away and nearly non-existent except in setting generally agreed frameworks.
There were enforced rules on war, and on private citizens operating things like privateers, actual "military vehicles" and "crew served weapons". I think it's reasonable from the text and history there to say the 2A doesn't mean anyone gets tanks or whatever anymore then anyone could just buy a frigate and legally go privateering without a letter of marque. MGs and HE changed the game a lot too. But for any small arms up to that, with lots of personal use, I think the 2A really does apply pretty strictly. We do still have parts of the country as well that are still pretty far from any government support/response (granted, hours not months, but plenty long enough). Hunting does still matter to many families. I guess maybe the biggest criticism I could entertain of the 2A is that maybe there should be more flexibility in theory for local government. I can see reasonable arguments that the rules in the middle of NYC shouldn't be identical to those in remote Alaska or Montana, in both directions.
>I can see reasonable arguments that the rules in the middle of NYC shouldn't be identical to those in remote Alaska or Montana, in both directions.
To expand on this too, I think the "smoosh everyone into the same bucket" is one of the big lost lessons of American history in [present times]. In the old days of things being more spread out and uniform and less nationalized there was less pressure to force one-size-fits-all. As a rural person I really resent city person efforts to push what makes sense when there's 30000 people per square mile on me, but in fairness what makes sense for us at like 1 person/sqmi with 97% white people probably isn't the best fit for an urban environment full of future astronauts. Wish there was a better way to get things more local again.
Also, I do think city gun grabber people don't actually consider a lot of potentially useful measures that wouldn't involve the extremes they go to and a lot is out of ignorance and how polarized stuff has gotten, because it's not like I've ever seen 2A folks suggest it either. Like imagine instead of May Issue stuff in NYC or LA, they instead tried "only frangible ammo allowed". Nobody is hunting in the city and at close range frangible is plenty deadly if it's not vs armor, I've killed plenty of game with frangible 9mm and hogs with frangible 308. But the argument "with city densities pretty much anywhere you shoot is going to have a high risk of lots of people behind the target" doesn't strike me as unfair. They could do focused things like aim to reduce over penetration but still let people defend themselves from mugging or robbery or whatever.
Instead it's so black & white now. Either
>absolutely no guns at all allowed anywhere to anyone
or
>absolutely every gun of any kind allowed everywhere even on private property of people who don't want it
it's just so tiresome now. It shouldn't be this bad in either direction.
>militia flavor stuff is irrelevant just a turn of phrase at the time
No, it's not.
It's actually essential to what the 2A means.
>It's actually essential to what the 2A means.
I don't agree. I think what the 2A means is no more or less than
>"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
in the same way the 1A is
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
both of these should be strict scrutiny and brought forward expansively for new tech developments not just whatever happened in the 1800s.
>I think what the 2A means is no more or less than
But the text is:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The well-regulated militia being necessary to the security is a central point of the 2A. Of course, you CAN just say this doesn't mean anything, but why would you, when the militia model was almost the default at the time and founders did believe that a militia is more favoable than a standing military, due to security concerns (and cost) associated with the power of such an entity.
The militia part is essential to understanding the meaning of the second ammendment and just because you like guns doesn't mean you need to lie about what it means here, just because you think it to be politically expedient.
A militia without machine guns and destructive devices would be pretty useless. Why are those controlled, again? Looks like the founder intended for ownership and use of those to you know, not be infringed.
Yes, but see the key phrase here "well-regulated".
Clearly the people who have machine guns are are part of the militia need to be selected, because machine guns are dangerous and you can't give them to everyone.
>because machine guns are dangerous and you can't give them to everyone.
The same logic can be applied to any firearm you enormous homosexual.
Exactly.
Disingenuous, in the historic context well regulated means very functional. And before you try to say the militia isn't everyone, it is, the militia act and definition of "militia" both say so
>very functional
How is a militia functional?
By being very organized and very disciplined. Which would in turn would imply some sort of structure and standards, because just because you have a gun you don't function in a militia-context.
This would mean everyone who wants to own a gun has to submit to some form of organization, which almost certainly includes things like regular training and a somewhat militaristic structure, but of course because it is a militia, it wouldn't be full-time.
No, a militia is not as effective as a conventional standing force, are raised only in emergencies and is comprised of the civilian populace. The militia act explains in depth that the Organised Militia you're describing exists, as does the Unorganised Militia, which is militia in the classic sense, and comprises literally every citizen. The second amendment is in place explicitly so that the civilian population can form the militia in a time of crisis. You sound like a complete britcuck that thinks in terms of line warfare
You are moronic, machineguns weren't banned until 1986, when 200 dollars no longer equaled 4000 dollars, and just because you're blackpilled doesn't mean things are actually worse than before. I want no tax machineguns, in 2022 *because* the worst shooting in american history happened an hour from my house, mass shootings *aren't* on the rise, they can be stopped on the spot, school shootings have happened since at least the 20's, we're at peace instead of having the social tension of Vietnam (bet you didn't know that 1976 saw 1,700 domestic bombings in the USA, homosexual), I don't even have any idea about what the hell your strawman about thousands strong mass shootings that have not and will not ever happen is about, and you are the only person in the thread trying to say that you should prevent people from doing what they want, i.e. forcing (something?) against the public like a moron.
>The second amendment is in place explicitly so that the civilian population can form the militia in a time of crisis
A civilian population cannot form the militia unless they are trained to a certain standard.
My argument remains.
The militia was defined as ALL able bodied white men in a certain age bracket, there was never any training element to it at fricking all.
>A civilian population cannot form the militia unless they are trained to a certain standard.
if you form a militia it stands to reason the person running it isn't a complete fricking moron, or somebody who is in the higher ranks isn't and would train those people. Militias aren't run by morons unless it's Africa.
They absolutely can if they are armed, and militia's again are not expected to perform to the same degree because of their lack of uniformity in training. Firearms safety used to (and should still be) taught in schools. Training is important, and everyone should acquire some, like guns. Also your reading comprehension needs work, what does "unorganized" mean?
>what does "unorganized" mean?
to me it means "not well-regulated", so uncostitutional according to the second ammendment.
you're being pedantic to try and prove your point, stop that.
Regulated means equipped, not organized.
regulated means effective.
And an military-like organization is not effective without being organized.
oh shut up, what the hell is a militia to you that'd be unorganized, a bunch of rednecks is still pretty well organized, you're telling me suddenly it's not just to serve your petty argument? Frick off bureaucrat.
No it doesn't, it means equipped.
The Militia Acts also directly say "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia", not putting ANY training or organization element to being in the milita, but rather ALL white men in a certain age bracket, trained or not, organized or not.
>No it doesn't, it means equipped.
No it doesn't. "well-regulated" means "effective" in the historic context. And this obviously includes organization.
It does not and has never meant effective, only equipped.
It means well-organized, well-disciplined and, yes, well-armed.
It only means the "well armed" part. The other parts do not fit under the meaning of regulation.
Why not?
As far as I can tell, every source I look at tells me that "well-regulated" meant something along the lines of "in working order". From that definition we can derive what well-regulated means in the context of a militia.
Well-organized, well-armed and well-disciplined.
Because "well regulated" doesn't mean "in working order", it means "well equipped".
It's a moot point regardless because it doesn't actually matter, there are two separate subjects in 2a. Even if the first part said "An organized trained centralized Federal military being necessary..." the second part still says "the right of THE PEOPLE...". Regardless of INTENT, the literal raw text gives a completely unrestricted right to any and all armaments to the people no matter how you read the first half.
>Because "well regulated" doesn't mean "in working order", it means "well equipped".
Provide a source for this definition of well-regulated within the 18th century.
Consider these examples form the Oxford English Dictionary:
>1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
this means "functioning", not well-equipped.
>1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
this also means "functioning", not well-equipped.
>1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
This arguably leans more towards the modern meaning, of, well, well-regulated. But "functioning" works here as well
>1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
Every well-equipped person will blame the mayor? That doesn't sound right, does it?
But please prove your idea of the term in the late 18th to mid-19th century using sources where "well-equipped" actually works.
You won't have much of a well functioning militia if they are not well equipped.
and you won't have much of a well-functioning militia if they're not trained or disciplined.
The definition of "militia" in 1792 SPECIFICALLY rules out training or organization as requirements by listing all people of a certain class as members without regard to those things, "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia".
And the definition of well-regulated specifically includes training and organization requirements.
Or do you believe that if you plucked 10 people who do own a gun in that age range off the street, you'd end up with 10 effective combatants?
I sure don't think so and neither should you if you have ever been to a range.
>you'd end up with 10 effective combatants
Do you think state or federal regulation would be required to turn them into effective combatants? thinking.jpg
well, I'd say so that there'd need to be some sort of regulation imposed onto all people who own guns according to the second ammendment, so they are in fact effective combatants.
Even a child can see that just putting them on a list isn't enough.
A glorified meat shield unloading a machinegun in a general direction before being killed is effective to a degree. Suicide bombers are effective. In fact, NFA controlled weapons like machineguns and explosives can make untrained people more effective.
>In fact, NFA controlled weapons like machineguns and explosives can make untrained people more effective.
no they can't they make no difference anyone can make them already anyway easy
Good argument, I'll accept it.
Some synonyms for each of these use cases:
>1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
Sensible, informed, reasonable, sane.
>1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
Logically constructed, fair
>1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
Well-constructed, well-designed, obeys/is in harmony with the observed natural universe
>1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
Reasonable, sensible, sane, informed, logical
None of these require government involvement. They can all be achieved by human beings, and collectives of human beings. Very specifically, they are all independent of a government. Associations of private individuals are fully capable, as assumed by default until & unless proven otherwise. This is the essence of "beyond a reasonable doubt," where innocence of intent is the assumed condition. Laws can be created to punish, inhibit, or prevent harmful behaviors, but they cannot assume or be applied as thought crimes to the possibility of ill-intent ... only to proven ill-intent and or proven harm.
your entire argument hinges on the idea that you can't train or coordinate without sucking government dick. Believe it or not, teamwork and coordination are not unique to statist cucks, nor are comms equipment, and there's plenty of veterans that disagree with the sitting government or otherwise simply embrace the constitution. You're trying to argue that militia *have* to be the *best* combatants on the field or they should be illegal, which is argument in very poor faith. Well regulated means in working order; a militia doesn't need to be the best combatant possible to be in working order, only capable of combative action at all. Your strawman that the militia has to be morons because they aren't professional soliders is just that.
My argument hingest on the fact that there needs to be some fedalized standards that need to be met. Where you set those standards is largely irrelevant. If your idea of "in working order" is satisfied with "they're guys who have guns", then sure. That's a well-regulated militia.
But I think there needs to be a least some base level of competence among everyone. Whatever that level may be.
"they're guys who have guns" *IS* the federalized, constitutional standard, you dolt.
Yeah and I think that's too low.
>Your strawman that the militia has to be morons because they aren't professional soliders is just that.
There's real world precedent to demonstrate that the U.S. government doesn't care about government-trained personnel. they're called "contractors," and pretty much none of them have any requirements to be trained or evaluated by the U.S. government. They are represented by the assertion that they know what they're doing, either by themselves or by corporate entities. Literally more than a half century (if not more than a century) of precedent covering tens upon tens of millions of private contractors of all flavors. All a citizen has to do is assert & affirm that they are qualified, it then becomes someone else's responsibility to prove otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Any militia that forms itself is a private contractor entity, whether or not they work for a government or independent of one. Or if they work at all, because volunteers & non-profits. The organization and the individuals within it represent their own credentials, and standards for those credentials. They could even form a union and retain legal counsel, the same as any police union.
>typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
>for lawful purposes
If this is a test then pro-2a people will be disappointed. Assuming no ban in place, how many people would buy say an M240 and belts of ammo to defend their home. The number would not come close to "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens"
Specifically to defend their home? Not many.
But how many people would own, say, a giggle-switch AR just because they can and so they can occasionally magdump a d-50?
>But how many people would own, say, a giggle-switch AR just because they can and so they can occasionally magdump a d-50?
see
People were registering lots of machine guns in the 80s. As national fiscal policy drives the value of $200 lower and lower, the number of registered firearms can be expected to climb. If the MG registry were open today they would be more common than SBR registrations.
>typically possessed
I think this is terrible standard. It's like saying the first amendment doesn't apply to publishing a book until a certain number of people have already bought the book.
What's more, the book was banned in the 50s as commie propaganda. Even though the federal ban was lifted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the book is still not protected from state bans due to the small number in circulation not meeting this court's "commonly circulating" standard for 1st amendment protections.
That sounds like a fat load of bulllshit.
>No one has this yet, therefore no one should be allowed to have it!
This legal concept should be tossed out entirely. For firearms, for books, for all forms of innovation.
>Assuming no ban in place, how many people would buy say an M240 and belts of ammo to defend their home.
the law makes no distinction between belt fed machine guns and the select fire rifles and machine pistols that most gun owners would likely seek for their defense.
and prior to 1986, privately owned machine guns weren't rare.
I would own a 240B and belts of ammo to defend my home from the other people in multicam who have 240Bs
This is such shitty reasoning. I wonder why machine guns, short barrelled rifles and shotguns, and silencers aren't typically possessed by law-abiding citizens? Could it be that they were banned-in-all-but-name in the 1930s? thinking.jpg
>banned-in-all-but-name in the 1930s
An NFA stamp isn't really a ban, but it is basically the same as a poll tax, which was disallowed. The real ban was in the 80s when you weren't allowed to get new shit on the registry.
The NFA was absolutely intended as a ban when it was passed. It was the closest thing they could get and they'd have gone farther if they could.
200 dollars in 1934 is 4,300 dollars today. If that's not essentially a ban on ownership, I don't know what is. Why do you think they are now imposing excise and vice taxes on guns? Because it's essentially a ban...
Like I said, it was essentially the same as a poll tax. One was to stop blacks from voting, the other was to stop poors from owning guns.
law abidding citizens bought them before the NFA though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Auto_%26_Burglar
>The "auto" in its name referred to "automobile"; it was intended as a self-defense weapon which could easily be carried in an automobile, but it was taken up by bank guards, police departments, watchmen and messengers.
>The Heller opinion strongly suggests SBS are not 2a protected:
the circular logic is well understood to be what it is, circular. SBSs are not common because they're not lawful, but they have a lawful purpose and can be found issued in every military the world over, they're useful for militia purposes, and thus they're second amendment protected.
The Miller decision was flawed. The argument was that SBS weren't protected by the 2A because they had no military purpose, but not even 20 years prior the US Army used SBS in the trenches of WWI to such great effect that the Germans, who invented chemical warfare, formally protested against their use.
SCOTUS is pissed. the left who they let do whatever they wanted for decades are attacking them physically. Thomas is going to get his way. wait for it.
Yeah I agree. In the modern situation we’re in I can understand some restriction on machine guns, I don’t know if I really want every Dayquan and Jose to be able to walk into a store and get an M249, but deregulation of SBR/SBS/AOWs are an optical middle ground that is an actual win for 2A
Oh and suppressors as well
spix and nigs dont tote rifles, they carry hand guns to off each other. M249 will never come into play, they'll want glock18s.
Honestly should go baby steps.
Start with suppressors, then sbrs.
Honestly I'd be ok with stopping it there. I don't care about the rest of the NFA items.
have a nice day.
don't care + you're white
this is a direct result of the repeal of Roe V. Wade. basically the US supreme-court is stopping legislation from the bench and is slapping all the regulatory agencies for comign up with their own laws and then guestoppo style slapping arbitrary fines on people who are obeying the 2nd amendment and their protected rights.
it means the NFA and by consequence the GCA are going to be made mostly defunct and unconstitutional.
There may be. The NFA was essentially a tax, because the authors knew an outright ban would most likely be ruled unconstitutional. This idea was argued when challenged in the Miller case, and the law upheld using the two-step analysis. IIRC this case was also argued in abstentia, because Miller was put in a situation where he could not appear before the Supreme Court. A shitty move by anti-gun judges/lawyers.
When FOPA passed, they also closed the tax registry for machine guns, creating a de facto ban. With the Bruen decision, both laws now appear to be in violation of the 2A and Text/History/Tradition.
The government may have shot itself in the foot by going after CRS for the auto key-card, because they are arguing these facts in their defense filings in addition to 1st amendment violations. Like that one guy a few years ago with his 80% AR receivers, I would expect that ATF drops this case like a ton of shit brix to prevent it from being appealed and reviewed.
>IIRC this case was also argued in abstentia, because Miller was put in a situation where he could not appear before the Supreme Court.
Miller was dead. Look it up.
>brix to prevent it from being appealed and reviewed.
Nah, they'll go through with it. It takes years for a case to appear before the SCOTUS and by that time, they can create more clauses and statues, which will then be sent back to the SCOTUS cycle. They can litigate until the country dies of old age and until the case is resolved, it shall be treated as a passing law. That's their secret weapon.
they also have model legislation now that the 5th circuit and scotus have mindboggling let stand, that anti-choice private action texas law now getting copied that was designed specifically to resist any judicial review. grabber states can copy that word for word and change it to a private right of action against gun dealers and manufacturers and it's off to the races
remember that the ATF isn't the prosecuting party in this case the sate of texas is, so they can't drop any charges.
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
> JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
> CASE №: 3:21-cr22(S2)-MMH-MCR
> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
> v.
> MATTHEW RAYMOND HOOVER,
> ________________________________/
> SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS & TO DECLARE
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934
>the ATF killed 46 children based on the ghost of a possibility of a 200$ tax stamp worth of tax evsaion
The best solution, and the one is was intended by the founders because they also were under illegitimate rule, is to have a weapon equivalent to the King's soldiers. Not for hunting, not for self defense, but for killing soldiers of a government that has gone mad with power. Apparently it is an age old problem, and it is clear why 1A and 2A are at the top and not elsewhere. The word militia also shows that a standing army was also looked down upon as every able man was expected to take up arms in defense of his own freedom but as a collective.
The idea is if you walk out the front door with a rifle in your hands and your neighbors are also standing outside their front door and they have rifles in their hands, you have a collective, perhaps a grievance, and you have been denied the right to gather, or to address grievances, or the voting is broken and now it's time to have a discussion about who is the plurality and how shall they be governed and what tools shall be available to have this discussion.
No. This is a desperate last attempt to save a moronic mouthbreather via an essentially impossible hail mary. This moron is going to prison for decades.
it will be funny if by some miracle that moron gets off the hook then does something even more moronic and goes right back to jail
I long for the day when communities can pool their resources to buy antitank weapons and use them to keep federal forces at a respectful distance.
Don't let your dreams be dreams
>it's babies first NFA lawsuit
Yes plz
You know, as much as it's gay and israeli to just have to wait for these literal israeli pedophiles in the government to die of old age so we can get our rights back. It's also nice knowing their ABC agencies are never going to get the chance to go door-to-door and live out their white-murdering fantasies. The pigs are going to end as they began, in a sea of mundane paperwork and unfulfilled dark desires for evil.
Honestly the Hughes Amendment has a better chance of being overturned than the NFA right now. Removing suppressors from the NFA as well seemed to be gaining some traction as well last I checked, but not enough to remove the NFA as a whole
>Honestly the Hughes Amendment has a better chance of being overturned than the NFA right now
i'd be OK with that
I’ve said it before on /k/, but progun lobbying orgs and politicians should just focus on neutering the NFA rather than trying to get the whole thing repealed or overturned. The three main things everyone hates about the NFA are the $200 tax stamps, the waiting period, and the machine gun ban. Just attack those three things specifically, and leave the rest as is.
>change $200 tax stamp into a $5 tax stamp like AOWs already have
>eliminate waiting period and just allow people to take possession of their NFA firearm upon filing the 4473 and the regular NFA paperwork, fingerprinting, etc. and passing NICS check like you have to do for any other firearm; at the very least make it something like a 90-day mandatory maximum waiting period so the feds can’t just sit on your Form 4 for a year
>repeal the Hughes Amendment and let new machine guns be sold just like any other NFA firearm
Since the NFA is tax law, any of this could be weaseled into one of those “must pass” bipartisan omnibus tax bills. I’m just a layperson, but I don’t see why this wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t shake up the status quo too much like repealing the entire NFA and GCA would do. You would still have to do all the same paperwork and pass the same background checks that you do now. Something like this could fly under the radar much more easily than the Hearing Protection Act that tried to remove silencers from the NFA entirely.
You really think those are the three things?
>the $200 tax stamps
Yeah pretty annoying, but since it's fixed it drops in effective cost every single year. On principle I don't think the government should ever be allowed to charge a tax on rights, if it's important to do something like background checks or licensing the government should pay from general fund, but it's not the worst.
>the waiting period
This is the single worst thing by far. Months and months with random delays to do the same fricking thing over and over again.
>and the machine gun ban.
This is like almost the least important thing though. Plenty of people outright support this, plenty more don't care. It at least has logic behind it. The SBR/AOW and suppressor bits are a billion times worse. Utterly arbitrary, easy to cross merely in the normal course of having a gun "hey might be fun to try a foregrip on this thing WHOOPS NOW (YOU)'RE A FELON", don't have any particular connection to public risk, and/or are important safety stuff.
Taking cans and SBR/AOW completely off the NFA should be goal #1, though eliminating the tax and making it day minutes/hours (or at the worst a few days) might be good enough to have similar effect.
>Yeah pretty annoying, but since it's fixed it drops in effective cost every single year.
So fixing the cost at $5 would be even better. There is literally no reason to not at least try this since AOWs already have a $5 tax (to transfer, not manufacture).
>This is like almost the least important thing though.
No it’s not. All the bullshit surrounding the bump stock ban, RFT, autokeycard, etc. is predicated on the Hughes Amendment. As other anons said, no one would give a shit about SBRs if the Hughes Amendment didn’t exist, because everyone would just buy and manufacture machine guns (which can have any barrel length). Obviously machine guns would be in common use today just as much as SBRs and silencers if we were allowed to buy new ones.
>So fixing the cost at $5 would be even better. There is literally no reason to not at least try this since AOWs already have a $5 tax (to transfer, not manufacture).
The cost SHOULD be $0 anon, taxes on rights are wrong albeit regrettably common. I'm just trying to think about politically feasible stuff. If I had to PICK on what to get through in an NFA reform bill to get all the support onboard, the stamp tax would be something I could see jettisoning vs more important stuff.
>Obviously machine guns would be in common use today
No that's not obvious at all, nor obviously a good thing. MGs are purely about moron fun for normal people, and otherwise just burn money. You might as well magdump with a binary trigger. They have zero application anywhere. And they'd definitely make terrorism worse, their whole original point was to mow down mass crowds, the old style line and mass infantry charge tactics. Pick any 4th of July parade or any other, one person with an LMG could just hose down a street.
Meanwhile SBRs are actually LESS effective (lower velocity), merely a choice of convenience innawoods or to meet other goals, and suppressors should be on everything for health, situational awareness (safety) and politeness.
>muh terrorism
9/11 was done by hijackers with box cutters
>9/11 was done by hijackers with box cutters
And easily stopped from ever happening again by reinforcing doors and changing procedures to have passengers not cooperate and stay quiet which was literally the recommendation up until then (previously the assumption was that hijackers were always after ransom and would just land the plane and make their demands so no one should rock the boat). Do you think terrorism would go DOWN if we allowed bombs, machine guns and blow torches on aircraft you fricking moron? have a nice day.
>Do you think terrorism would go DOWN if we allowed bombs, machine guns and blow torches on aircraft you fricking moron? have a nice day.
You sound like a lazy TSA Black person
Also I'm not talking about having those things on planes
Terrorism is not an excuse to curb rights
>You sound like a lazy TSA Black person
You sound like an edgy 18 year old.
>Also I'm not talking about having those things on planes
Then why the frick did you bring up 9/11?
>Terrorism is not an excuse to curb rights
Of course it's an issue anon when one set of rights affects another set of rights. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. I love going to and participating in our spring agriculture parade, 4th of July parades, and other big gatherings with our town and surrounding ones. And I'm ok with there being some small risk from a headcase with a semiauto like I've got. Cityfolks lose their minds over ""mass"" shootings where like 6 people die out of tens of thousands but I think there are better ways to deal with it and at any rate those weapons also have critical other roles beyond fun and some level of risk is part of the price for our rights. And I think it's possible for regular citizens, even caught by surprise, to fight back effectively.
That doesn't mean I see the same reason to let those headcases or joggers have HMGs where they could mow down fricking everyone in sight WW1 trench war style before anyone could do jack shit. I see no value in them to the regular citizen beyond maybe some excitement for richgays, and that's not good enough. If you think the population will go along with your black and white view on that good fricking luck. The 2A will definitely come into it there but maybe not the direction you were expecting.
When was the last time a schizo used a legally-obtained NFA firearm or silencer in a mass shooting? Just remove the Hughes Amendment and let us buy new machine guns like we can any other SBR ffs. You sound like Hillary Clinton with your fear-mongering. The anti-gunners already try to argue that semi-autos are just as dangerous as machine guns, so I don’t know why you think we should just let the machine gun ban stand as if they’ll suddenly start arguing in good faith.
>When was the last time a schizo used a legally-obtained NFA firearm or silencer in a mass shooting?
I have no idea but I'd assume never, because suppressors and SBRs don't actually help one bit. It wouldn't mean anything if they did anyway. Like I said, I don't think those should even be on the NFA, nor AOWs. But legal MGs are so hard to get and so fricking expensive that isn't an argument against THOSE at all. And you're an absolute fricking downie homosexual if you are trying to argue that MGs don't actually have any increase effectiveness at killing people, like holy shit.
>You sound like Hillary Clinton with your fear-mongering.
You sound like you're actually <18 parroting shit /misc/ told you.
>The anti-gunners already try to argue that semi-autos are just as dangerous as machine guns, so I don’t know why you think we should just let the machine gun ban stand as if they’ll suddenly start arguing in good faith.
Why the FRICK would I give a shit about ignorant noguns flatlander opinions anon? You're treating this like political football. I'm talking actual reality. MGs are in fact more dangerous, that's why modern military doctrine focuses on them. We just saw that with NGSW, Army didn't really give a crap about the service rifle they cared about the LMG. The rifle is just so each infantry has something to get lucky or suppress with while the MGs are brought to bear. And I personally am not convinced they shouldn't be restricted until there is a better technological answer to their misuse. At that point restrictions should lighten.
You could potentially convince me that range toy MGs (and if you want to use it for "home defense" sure whatever) should be legal so long as they come with heavy control. But just out there for whomever like semiauto? Nah, not seeing that.
You’re dumb because criminals have been buying Chinese Glock full-auto switches for years now. If the Hughes Amendment was repealed, the machine guns would still fall under all the same regulations as other NFA firearms. Whether a schizo magdumps 30 rounds into a room full of trapped school children in five seconds or ten seconds doesn’t fricking matter in the grand scheme of things. The military doesn’t use the M240 to mow down zerg-rushing taliban anyway. You’re using the same logic anti-gunners use when they say AR-15s should be banned. I’m short, get raped and kys you moronic homosexual.
Of course you're a dumb fricking frogposter.
>The military doesn’t use the M240 to mow down zerg-rushing taliban anyway
and holy frick you have room temperature IQ. The military 100% DID use machine guns to mow down zerg-rushing germans (and vice versa). The reason it doesn't happen anymore like with dune coons is because nobody is fricking moronic enough to zerg rush machine guns because everyone on the planet after WW1 knows exactly what happens if you try, and our military isn't in the business of just randomly mowing down civilian crowds either because we're not vatBlack folk. Which in no way means machine guns wouldn't excel at mowing down civilian crowds. WTF anon?
>You’re using the same logic anti-gunners use when they say AR-15s should be banned
No I'm not, because I know how guns actually work and the tradeoffs there. I stated why. I'm actually wondering if you're not a falseflagger at this point because you talk like a stereotype gun grabbers use of a mindless moron. Though since this is /k/ odds are you're actually serious because you have one or more mental disorders.
That other guy is flat moronic and inarticulate, but you're still wrong because there's the entire period between automatics being invented, and the hughes amendment, where the machine guns were not problematic beyond a very small number of high profile bank robberies that were absolutely anomalous.Your personal worry about your safety is your own responsibility to fulfill, and other people owning machineguns does not infringe your rights or well being unless you're being shot at already. People don't actually want to shoot at you unless you think you should be telling them what to do in their lives, as you clearly do, because you think you should determine which arms they're capable of defending their families and livelihoods with. I'd be worried about machineguns being legal soon , too, if I were as big a homosexual as you.
>small number of high profile bank robberies that were absolutely anomalous
The prohibition era could hardly be considered anomalous, you'd have to be an idiot to not foresee the subsequent "crime wave".
Anomalous means unusual, not unpredictable.
>but you're still wrong because there's the entire period between automatics being invented, and the hughes amendment, where the machine guns were not problematic beyond a very small number of high profile bank robberies that were absolutely anomalous.
Anon, for almost all of that period they were also super fricking expensive and elite only by present standards, as earlier anon mentioned when the NFA was introduced $200 was more like $4400. It was meant to effectively be banned entirely except for richgays. Gun control laws in general were also massively more restrictive nationwide, and gun ownership a lot lower. Pic related is a huge TRIUMPH for us overall, but it does also mean you can't just blindly compare pre-80s to now. We had a safer culture too, better politics, more community, more purpose with the cold war, middle class hadn't been fricked and hollowed out yet, more people who grew up with guns responsibly, etc. Just look at the mass shooting numbers by year. If you want to claim machine guns for everyone now for 200 year-2022 dollars (and keep in mind I think that should be $0, I don't approve of rights taxes at all) would be identical to before the 1980s you've got a long row to hoe. For better and for worse things are different now and this is definitely, objectively, for worse.
As for the rest of your stupid horseshit nope that's not how democracy works and if you try to force it like a moron against public consent you will get stomped. When mass shootings mean hundreds or thousands dead at a time instead of a half dozen for something that is utterly indefensible for anything but fun or crime, states will just flat out fricking ignore SCOTUS if it comes to that. I want our freedoms to be sustainable.
/k/ (really all specialist forums) constantly overstate what's "easy". I used to do that too, with both guns and tech. But no these things are no easy for the average person and that goes double for headcases.
>When mass shootings mean hundreds or thousands dead at a time instead of a half dozen for something that is utterly indefensible for anything but fun or crime, st
literally never gonna happen unless it's a legit psyop by glowBlack folk. bad enough most mass shootings take place by troubkled kids who the system somehow "misses" in areas where nobody but the shooter has a gun. You look at Texas and the only big mass shooters are in areas where a texan can't blow the homosexual away with a trunk ar 15.
>literally never gonna happen unless it's a legit psyop by glowBlack folk
It doesn't take a fricking PHD to run a Maxim 1910 (or a Browning M1917/1919 for that matter). They were designed to be usable by barely trained conscripts to great effect, and succeeded. Like shit, they're STILL in use, they're being used against vatniks again in the Ukraine war!
>https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/05/11/why-ukraines-army-still-uses-a-100-year-old-machinegun
anyone who isn't fricking physically disabled (too much) or (too) moronic can use one of those for as long as they've got ammo and water to great effect against any number of non-armored targets. And a modern company could certainly do much better.
I can't believe I'm arguing on /k/ in 2022 that machine guns work and are highly effective weapons. What a fricking timeline.
>It doesn't take a fricking PHD to run a Maxim 1910 (or a Browning M1917/1919 for that matter). They were designed to be usable by barely trained conscripts to great effect, and succeeded. Like shit, they're STILL in use, they're being used against vatniks again in the Ukraine war!
The military doens';t admit anyone with an IQ below or at 80, that's a large swathe of the global population. African Black folk can barely use AKS they don't even know what sights are for and they're 80 IQ sub humans. They thought cranking the knob up to max made the bullets shoot harder. Come on,
>anyone who isn't fricking physically disabled (too much) or (too) moronic can use one of those for as long as they've got ammo and water to great effect against any number of non-armored targets. And a modern company could certainly do much better.
And any normal ass american with an IQ above 80 who could ACTUALLY AFFORD THEM would be able to counter it, no problem, especially patriotic types who would bthen be encouraged and not ruby ridged. Unless of course it was a glowBlack person psyop.
>waaah we have to ban machine guns because muh fee-fees and nobody had them before Hughes anyway
I think r*ddit may be the website you’re looking for buddy.
>/k/ (really all specialist forums) constantly overstate what's "easy"
It truly is easy if you're not worried about longevity nor safety. Especially with 3D printers being cheap and available, you can manufacture dozens of fire-to-fail DIAS without knowing a thing about 3D printing nor auto sears. The only two explanations as to why shooters don't use that stuff are that shooters are exceptionally moronic and care about the coverage vs the results, or that shooters are government plants using whatever weapon will achieve the biggest legislative effect.
>It truly is easy if you're not worried about longevity nor safety.
Anon a large part of the population does not change the oil in their cars. They leave that exclusively for their dealer's service department.
>Especially with 3D printers being cheap and available
You already lost like 99% of people. Random schizos aren't learning about 3D printing let alone buying one.
>you can manufacture dozens of fire-to-fail DIAS without knowing a thing about 3D printing nor auto sears.
I say this with genuine kindness and no irony because I wore these kinds of blinders too for years, but you REALLY underestimate your own knowledge and meta knowledge anon.
Gotta take care of the overpopulation somehow.
>Gotta take care of the overpopulation somehow.
America isn't overpopulated, nor the rest of the rich world, in fact barring immigration our pops are shrinking naturally. It's the shitholes that are packed with breeding locusts. I absolutely don't want more dead white people from our laws here than necessary.
The only places on the planet suffering from too many people is the places where Black folk, taco Black folk, rice-cucks, and curry Black folk come from indigenously.
The only "over-population" problem in white countries is that the variant Black folk are infesting those places.
>that's not how democracy works and if you try to force it like a moron against public consent you will get stomped.
Good thing we're not an outright democracy and actually can force our rights down other people's throats with the Supreme Court.
>When mass shootings mean hundreds or thousands dead at a time instead of a half dozen for something that is utterly indefensible for anything but fun or crime, states will just flat out fricking ignore SCOTUS if it comes to that.
If they arrest someone on machinegun charges, that person can just appeal it until it gets to Federal court and the case gets thrown out. The States don't get a say.
>Good thing we're not an outright democracy and actually can force our rights down other people's throats with the Supreme Court.
Only until you can't. Then you get insurrection. Or alternatively would you say the same thing if SCOTUS suddenly was proggie controlled?
>If they arrest someone on machinegun charges, that person can just appeal it until it gets to Federal court and the case gets thrown out. The States don't get a say.
lol? Who has said person in their physical custody, the state or the federal court? If a state officer just goes ahead and shoots them and then the state governor issues said officer a pardon now what? That's totally legal, it's governed by norms, not laws. What if states just, like, refuse to obey? This is flat out a fantasy desired scenario amongst the /misc/Black folk, though it never seems to occur to them that it could work both ways.
But even all THAT is assuming shit like court packing isn't done anon. Like FFS, ALL of our current grabber bullshit that we've spent decades working to get rid of came about under the exact same Constitution we've got right now. Thomas or Alito could have heart attacks or strokes or accidents tomorrow and suddenly the whole composition of SCOTUS flips around again, and then the new SCOTUS immediately reverses not just this but Heller etc, and NOW what anon? What would you said when SCOTUS 2023 gave grabber states the green light to ban semi-auto? How would you like that throat forcing when it was OUR throats? AGAIN.
>insurrection
By people without machineguns against people with machineguns. Sounds like a great way to rapidly tip the surviving population over to pro-machinegun.
>What if states just, like, refuse to obey
US Marshalls push their shit in next time we get an R potus.
>But legal MGs are so hard to get and so fricking expensive that isn't an argument against THOSE at all
Could you explain for a minute why legal MGs are hard to get and expensive?
Artificial scarcity caused by the Hughes amendment, material costs for a simple subgun are trivial. Which is the other anon's point, if every Hi Point had a fun switch gang shootings would be significantly deadlier.
>if every Hi Point had a fun switch gang shootings would be significantly deadlier.
they already have illegal automatics and hardware, if every state had constitutional gun laws gang violence would become non existent because those Black folk would be dropped by any American tired of theri shit or willing to defend themselves from small time thugs.
Not that you need an auto to do that, they can't aim for shit and have ahistory of being splattered in self defense by law abiding Americans who simply train. I don't think bloods or crips would ever step into a gun range.
>semi-auto
>can reasonably be expected to magdump slow enough that the muzzle is at least horizontal
>full auto
>lmao shooting into the air
They'd probably make shootings less deadly
>They'd probably make shootings less deadly
i live ina lib shithole, these Black folk can't hit shit as it is, most of the drive bys are done by street punks on bicycles anyway, so autos would m,ake it less dangerous. But still, as a man whoi's been hasseled by dregs in the ghetto, a gun would make evereything a lot better but OOPS you can't own a gun in libshit city. Only the rich get private security to cover their asses.
>i live ina lib shithole
I don't understand why people like you don't just fricking move. Freedom of movement and a federal system is one of the most important aspects of America. It's a big land for (you).
>I don't understand why people like you don't just fricking move. Freedom of movement and a federal system is one of the most important aspects of America. It's a big land for (you).
I am moving, lib shitholes aren't easy to get out of, and if you don't make good money you need to be careful about how you move so you can get healthcare. The ratholes are designed so you become an indentured slave shackled to the city or the government until you retire or die or else you can't get benefits. You're either some lucky yuppie type, or somebody who had the right connections to be able to move whenever.
>if every Hi Point had a fun switch gang shootings would be significantly deadlier.
And that’s a good thing.
>if every Hi Point had a fun switch gang shootings would be significantly deadlier.
Wow, we might have to strike at the source of the problem instead of the symptoms. What a travesty.
I'm other anon and yeah all of this, though fudds hoarding them for their collections is also a thing.
>Statistics already have an answer to their misuse but it's not politically correct.
It's also against the 2A which makes no exceptions. Which I agree with too, because a gun grabber government could easily abuse that kind of broad discretion the other way. But that means that method isn't very useful anon.
>could easily abuse that kind of broad discretion the other way
Haha yeah imagine a government which executed gangsters and deported illegals. What a nightmare.
>Haha yeah imagine a government which executed gangsters and deported illegals. What a nightmare.
Is that what you thinking President AOC would do with it? Whew.
>a better technological answer to their misuse
Statistics already have an answer to their misuse but it's not politically correct.
>And I personally am not convinced they shouldn't be restricted until there is a better technological answer to their misuse
Because you're a commie government lapdog. The misuse and misconduct is kept in check by the stalwart and alert citizen. No moronic "white" mass shooter is gonna shoot up in a palce where the peopel can turn around and blow him away, and he's specifically limited by mag capacity even if he is using an auto. Most of the kids who do this shit are fricked up form the schooling system, lack of home care, and no family from the modern age, if they start shit, you bet your ass normal adjsuted peolp can put them down. Same shit in nig neighborhoods, gang homiesz will be gang homies, but they suddenyl stop robbing stores if they're getting blown away by trained americans no matter the race. Worse thing that happens is they start roving in packs, which makes them a bigger taget for LEOs and concerned citizens.
AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY, remember that.
>I see no value in them to the regular citizen
Lighting up police when they go to breach your door. That's the real reason they want to keep MGs illegal, they're an actually good defense against the police state.
>Lighting up police when they go to breach your door
Give up on the MG meme and embrace the unrestricted power of chemistry my rebellious freedom loving friend.
>Terrorism is not an excuse to curb rights
Indeed, terrorism is specifically designed to curb rights. If you let your enemies curb your rights, they win.
>definitely make terrorism worse
Oh no! That would be bad. I would hate that.
>Oh no! That would be bad. I would hate that.
As would any decent person and responsible gun owner.
>Pick any 4th of July parade or any other, one person with an LMG could just hose down a street
They still can, with a pathetic amount of effort spent working with coat hangars, 3D printers, a drill press, or a shoestring. It's just illegal. Much like mowing down a parade.
My favorite was the 80% lower + steel rod + "BAD lever" to make an MG out of non-firearm AR-15 parts.
So long as steel tubes and glockenspiel magazines are easily avaliable, full auto firearms are trivial to construct.
Yes that was an autocorrect error and no I'm not fixing it.
So why are do you support making the tools illegal when the act is already illegal a dozen times over and the tools are specifically protected in the Constitution?
That would imply that democrat and neocon staffers won't read the bill and dispute it heavily based on those 3 alone. Dem staffers/anti-gunners are basically Randall from Recess and will skim entire bills for things they don't like and then create a media firestorm on those points.
I love your idea though and it is much more realistic than lolbert's screaming about repealing the NFA and saying every citizen should be carrying a Davy Crockett.
The NFA is a sham from the start. It was a direct consequence of the most embarrassing legislative act in the country's history, forever enshrined as the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution, which was itself a direct consequence of the suffrage movement.
The only meaningful challenge was Miller which was another sham, as the defendant couldn't show up due to trying to not get murdered by the organized crime which prohibition had thrust into incredible power and the repeal couldn't contain. Roosevelt's pet court didn't even bother to do any legal work, they just continued their new tradition of agreeing with whatever the USG said.
Look at the US's argument:
>On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
>1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
>2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
>3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
>4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.
Let's look specifically at #3, where the USG admits that the Second Amendment is intended to protect the ownership of military-type weapons. But what am I not allowed to register/manufacture today? Oh yeah it's the burst/automatic weapons that every member of the DOD qualifies on in basic training.
The only reason that an NFA challenge today won't win is that Roberts and Kavanaugh are so desperate to be seen as moderates that they'll vote against it even if they know damn well that the Bill of Rights was written specifically to make sure that the government could never take away the military arms of the citizens.
>The only reason that an NFA challenge today won't win is that Roberts and Kavanaugh are so desperate to be seen as moderates that they'll vote against it even if they know damn well that the Bill of Rights was written specifically to make sure that the government could never take away the military arms of the citizens.
I can't fathom the kinda slimeball oyu'd have to be to frick over your country like this.
just fyi you guys are the same type of homosexuals that post on state gun forums like here in nj that are constantly talking about how shit like magazine bans, assault rifle bans, concealed carry are all going to be fricked forever. just accept that youre moronic homosexuals and move on
>calls others moronic homosexuals
>lives in NEW JERSEY
AHAHAHHAHAHAH
The Supreme Court is so far gone at this point that literally anything could happen. There's not even a pretence of abiding by precedent anymore and who can guess at the unknowable workings of their pickled Federalist Society brains?
>The Supreme Court is so far gone at this point that literally anything could happen
who knew that following the consitution and not making such dramatic extrapolations from the 14th amendment would be "so far"?
Originalism has never been done before and we have no idea how it's going to turn out.
>"but all you have to do is do exactly what it says in the constitution"
What does it say exactly in the Constitution about the NFA?
Nothing?
Then I guess someone's gonna have to do some fricking interpreting then, and they could come up with literally fricking anything because it's just, like, their opinion, mannn.
The whole point of the court process is to put guides around that so that you get opinions that make sense. If you disregard the guides because "originalism" there's every potential that the opinions will no longer make sense.
What you consider to be an infringement someone else might not - for example, if you point your loaded firearm at a baby then am I allowed to take it off you, or does that infringe your right to keep and bear arms? Do people in prisons get to own firearms? These are questions that originalism does not help us answer. What DOES help us answer them is the centuries of legal precedent that has now been discarded.
Oh well, I'm leaving this gay ass country anyway and going home.
>What DOES help us answer them is the centuries of legal precedent that has now been discarded.
I don't understand this sort of hysteria that people are having over the fact that states now need to have a valid reason to deny you from carrying instead of just going "nuh-uh, I don't like you." There was literally nothing in that ruling that could be remotely construed as babies and felons can now freely carry RPGs and blow people up at their leisure, and they left ample room for states to restrict people who could potentially be dangerous. But antigun morons like you want to make this out to be a fricking apocalypse and screech about how muh laws from the 1600s have always let the government impose completely arbitrary restrictions, while also conveniently ignoring the fact that for the past 40 years the law in this country has been steadily trending towards allowing carry and shall-issue permitting processes with no sudden jumps in crime or murder in places that allow it. But sure, NY should be allowed to continue only letting politicians and movie stars carry guns because English common law has a history of treating lower class citizens like cattle, dick head.
>There was literally nothing in that ruling that could be remotely construed as babies and felons can now freely carry RPGs and blow people up at their leisure, and they left ample room for states to restrict people who could potentially be dangerous.
I didn't say that there was. I asked you to use your brain and explain to me why I can't just say that that's the law.
>"because you're not sitting in the magic chair"
If that's your only safeguard then that's a shitty system.
Welcome to originalism lmao.
>>But antigun morons like you want to make this out to be a fricking apocalypse and screech about how muh laws from the 1600s have always let the government impose completely arbitrary restrictions, while also conveniently ignoring the fact that for the past 40 years the law in this country has been steadily trending towards allowing carry and shall-issue permitting processes with no sudden jumps in crime or murder in places that allow it.
I like that you still ignored that part because you have no answer for it lmao
>I like that you still ignored that part
Ignoring it presupposes that I read it.
Yes, I'm aware non-americans apparently have trouble reading.
qq moar homosexual
Why do Euro morons always have so much to say about a subject they have absolutely no knowledge in?
I don't go on /lgbt/ and criticize your country's culture, so why do you do that here?
I like guns so I come to the gun board. It's not my fault your takes on law and governance are so shit.
As-salamu alaykum
With the current supreme court ruling there is a strong argument that the Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional but it might take more effort to throw the entire NFA out.
Several people are already trying to have old court rulings changed based on the new supreme court ruling so we may find out soon.
>inbred laughing in pashtun intensifies
Yes and no. Firstly, they were occupied for 20 years and could have been occupied indefinitely if anyone wanted to. Secondly, they received state support from Pakistan. It wasn't only a militia. And thirdly they were terrorists, not a militia - they operated differently to a militia as conceived by the founders in some ways but are similar in others and it depends how you want to construe it.
I don't think anyone's national defence plan has "do a Taliban" as item 1 on the list and that's a big difference between now and then. Militias were actually relied on by most governments in most areas back then as item 1 on the list.
the founding fathers were no different from the afghans in practice. george washington was a serial killer of indians, who was so unbelievably ruthless they still call him townburner.
Francis Marion was such a vicious terrorist that the indians moved from the area.
In some ways sure, like I said.
the govt has wargamed this to hell and back. theres no way they could ever win.
They are winning literally every day that you still pay your taxes.
The idea that "all the citizens" will rise up and fight "all the government" is moronic. They are the same people. It will be "red citizens and red government" fighting "blue citizens and blue government", like fricking always, and one of those governments definitely can and probably will win.
we;re going to be like sri lanka pretty soon with politician fleeing the country, and their homes burned or looted
Do eurotards not understand legislative bodies or do they only pretend not to when talking about the US for reddit-dunks
Europeans are shockingly moronic. No idea why anyone acts like their opinions hold any water
because they're like that loud obnoxious yuppie homosexual at the bar who thinks he's hot shit because he owns a middle class house on the east side like it fricking matters. At the end of the day, the bouncer's asking them to leave and somebody's fricking their wife.
>Europeans are shockingly moronic
TFW being a mix breed american and having several genetic chains linked to your family means you actually get better genes than frickwit Euros who never leave their feudal valleys.
>lawsuit
The bumpstock lawsuits have been ongoing for almost FOUR YEARS with no end in site, merely to overturn a simple ATF regulation. Bumpstocks are still illegal, even though bumpstocks are clearly not machineguns under the NFA. Never underestimate how much money and time the government can waste on a legal defense.
Can't wait for my 8" integrally suppressed .60 cal PDW with fun switch
>arguments against me owning a machine gun
They're unsafe or something
>arguments for me owning a machine gun
I want one
>conclusion
I will get a machine gun
while i would really like to say frick off to the NFA, i would be happy with the compromise of reversing the 86 closing of the registry and making it so all states have to allow NFA items in their boarders. It would be annoying to deal with but then still perfectly feasible for me to drill a third hole or whatever. Only other think i could think of is maybe changing the DD law to anything 30mm and above.
You could fit a homemade bomb into a hand-launched RC plane and kill a dozen+ people at a parade a half-mile away and nobody would ever see it coming nor could they ever track you down if you took basic precautions like buying it in cash far from your home and the bombing location.
You could rent a box truck and kill dozens of people at a parade if you're willing to die in a hail of police gunfire after.
People do mass shootings with guns because they know that's how you get your name out there (RIP Eric & Dylan) or because they're too moronic for more effective means or because they're being groomed by the government (RIP Eric & Dylan?). The availability or non-availability of machine guns can't be expected to meaningfully change the outcomes of mass killing events. Unless you're a gun-grabber, in which case there's no helping you.
>there are homosexuals on /k/ right now who think machine guns should be banned
Damn newbies have really made this place go downhill.
election tourist detected
It just keeps getting worse
WELL. REGULATED.
I comply with ALL rules and regulations! It feels so good to #comply
If I'm not able to buy hand grenades at the 7/11 two blocks from my house by this time next year I'm going to start an insurrection.
Oh yeah? How you gonna do that with no grenades buddy boy!
>suppressors
Will likely never be able to completely deregulate, but you may be able to educate more of the public that they aren't movie quite and are benefitial for preventing some hearing damage and noise pollution. This may allow them to become comtrolled more like current sbrs in terms of wait time.
>SBRs / SBSs
Will be a hard sell as the regulations on them are relatively light. You may be able to reclassify pistols with shoulder stocks like C96s and Hi-Powers so that they can make new productions of shoulderable handguns.
>DDs and Machine guns
Good luck. Christ himself could tell congress to frick off and nothing would change.