Should citizens in the United States be banned from possessing assault weapons?

[gunnerbob]

As long as handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are available people should be happy.

:dance3:

As long as 50hp, four seat, 20mph governed automobiles are available people should be happy.

How's that sound?

As long as water, not juice cocktail, soda or beer are available people should be happy.

Yes? No?

As long as green beans, not burgers, fries or steaks are available people should be happy.

Good with you?

Now, the things I mentioned have all been leading contributors to death in America. Should all these be banned as well?

 

[S&W645]

If you can, your wallet is a lot heavier than mine:wink:

You wouldn't believe some of the things the government has tried to pawn off on me while an acquisitions manager of a not for profit museum. :wink: Tanks, tugs ( as in ships ), aircraft, big guns, anchors, and the list goes on and on.

 

[Rhino]

No they aren't. There's no such thing as an assault weapon. NFA/class III firearms are not assault weapons.

There is NO such thing as a "class III firearm"!!

Note the slash character in my sentence and note also that there might be a reason why it's there. Assuming you know what a class III license is, then you should know that, unless the rules have changed since I had an FFL, a class III FFL is required to deal in firearms covered under the National Firearms Act (NFA), which assault rifles are and fictitious 'assault weapons' are not. But even if the class rules have changed, it's still NFA, and you're quite aware that's the point I was making. Seeing as how you brought class III up, I'm assuming you knew what it meant and what my comment meant, and you just posted this to be a ornery and to get a jab in rather than make a substantive point. Since there was no substance in your post other than a misdirected attempt to discredit what I posted, it seems I'm correct.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Due process is not a permit system. You thought they were the same thing ?

Of course not. But what do you think a Triple I check does when you apply for a permit? It might surprise you that a lot more happens than the gov taking a few bucks from you. Just wanted to give you a heads up that you contradicted yourself.

You still have no idea what the difference is between due process (Constitutional) and permit system (useless infringement)...

Few bucks...yeah...your elitist hole is getting so deep your podium no longer is above ground.

 

[Rhino]

To believe in gun control, one has to believe that rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.

 

[kerb]

You do not buy a permit to own a machine gun. You fill out paperwork and pay a tax to own one.They are not Class 3 weapons. They are NFA Title II weapons. Class 3 only refers to the Special Occupational Tax rate that a Type 01 FFL pays to sell the NFA Title II weapons. Type 07 FFLs pay a Class 2 SOT. And it is the same weapons that a Type 01 FFL pays the yearly tax to sell at a different tax rate. So NFA Title II weapons can be Class 1, 2, or 3 SOT rates. Type 01 FFls pay a yearly $500 Class 3 SOT for the stamp for their license.

This post should be stickied somewhere.

 

[tattedupboy]

That's just code for anything that looks scary. And since scary-looking can't really be defined, they define anything that has certain physical characteristics as being an illegal assault weapon that civilians shouldn't be allowed to own. And when manufacturers start producing clones of these weapons that don't have the offending characteristics, the antis will once again cry foul. Never mind that the clones don't fit the definition of an illegal "assault weapon" as defined under the law. Their agenda is much more nefarious, and coming up with terms such as "assault weapon" helps to advance their agenda of eventually banning all firearms.

 

[kerb]

As long as handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are available people should be happy.

:dance3:

You sure know how to get people spun up around here

 

[JeanP]

Guns are scary only to the uninformed and uneducated. The guns aren't scary, the BG robbing the place is. Also, there are no ugly guns... just ugly people.

 

[Flanmedic51]

You still have no idea what the difference is between due process (Constitutional) and permit system (useless infringement)...

Few bucks...yeah...your elitist hole is getting so deep your podium no longer is above ground.

You need to be careful how you say things. Due process of law...is what it is...against a person, land etc. If you are eluding to a due process violation in which something is taken in violation by the government (freedom, land etc), then that's a due process violation as I said. If due process has been delivered by the State against a person convicted of a crime, then a background check will pick that up, in which the permit system picks up on. I know what I'M talking about, but I question if you really do...I guess that's just my elitist hole talking.

 

[wigman]

I HATE the term assault weapon. If I assault someone with a baseball bat....does that make it an assault weapon? Kind of like "hate crimes". All crimes are hatred at some level.

NO guns should be banned at all. Rifles, pistols, machine guns...nothing. Yes, I know you can legally own a machine gun, if you have 5-40K kicking around (which is BS). If I have not committed a crime, I should be able to but any weapon I want right now no matter when it was made (1986 ban) or where it was made (import ban). Period. I can buy $1,500 worth of beer and know ones questions it. I can buy a Porsche that can go 180mph and know ones questions it. I can buy a rice rocket that goes 200mph and know ones questions it. I can smoke 5 packs a day with my kids in my car and know ones questions it. I can skydive, free dive, fly a plane, drive an 18-wheeler down a crowded highway and dozens of other activities that can kill me and others, and know ones questions it (as long as I am qualified in some instances).

Guns however...different story. The gov (state and fed) believes they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot own. Bunch of BS. If I hear one more politician or reporter say "assault weapon" my head will explode.

 

[Rhino]

To believe in gun control, one has to believe that rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.

That actually comes from a longer list.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won't harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 11, someone could have been hurt.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry over your retaliation and kill you.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that the gun lobby's attempt to run a don't touch campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a don't touch campaign is responsible social activity.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that guns are not an effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that pricing products out of the reach of poor people through excessive regulation is discriminatory practice, unless that product is a gun.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that the 14th Amendment requires states to accept each other's drivers licenses, even with age or vision requirement differences, marriage licenses even with age or relationship differences or if it's a gay marriage, but somehow doesn't apply to licenses to carry weapons.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that shooting at an intruder who smashes your door and enters with knife in hand will somehow escalate the violence.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that it's safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that guns cause crime, which is why there was no rape or murder in the Dark Ages.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that a safe gun will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like safe sex works so well to stop rape.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that telling a murderer he'll go to jail for carrying a gun will make him think twice.
.
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that a woman buying a gun to defend herself against a violent ex needs five days to cool off.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You still have no idea what the difference is between due process (Constitutional) and permit system (useless infringement)...

Few bucks...yeah...your elitist hole is getting so deep your podium no longer is above ground.

You need to be careful how you say things. Due process of law...is what it is...against a person, land etc. If you are eluding to a due process violation in which something is taken in violation by the government (freedom, land etc), then that's a due process violation as I said. If due process has been delivered by the State against a person convicted of a crime, then a background check will pick that up, in which the permit system picks up on. I know what I'M talking about, but I question if you really do...I guess that's just my elitist hole talking.

Yup, it is. Glad we agree on something.

As for the rest, do you actually believe someone who has been convicted of a crime worthy of their rights being taken away, will apply for a permit?

What will said criminal do after they are denied?

What if the criminal doesn't apply for a permit?

What if the criminal lives in a state with no permit system?

They will get a firearm anyways and carry it. So what exactly did the permit system do? Nothing.
What will happen in all the scenarios if the criminal is caught ? The exact same thing, unlawful possession of a firearm, which had nothing to do with the permit system, nor did the permit system ensure anything.

Due process = constitutional. Useful.

Permit system = useless infringement.

But hey, at least you aren't denying your elitist point of view anymore.

 

[maine04619]

Quote Originally Posted by maine04619 View Post
A Class 3 SOT dealer is a dealer of NFA firearms Nope. They are not. They are just a Type 01 FFL who has paid the Class 3 SOT. They are still a Type 01 FFL just they are allowed to sell NFA Title II items including suppressors.
A Class 2 SOT manufacturer is a manufacturer of NFA firearms Nope. They are not. They are just a Type 07 FFL who has paid the Class 2 SOT. They are still a Type 07 or 10 FFL just they are allowed to make and sell NFA Title II items and Title I items. Includes suppressors
A Class 1 SOT importer is an importer of NFA firearms Again, the importer still is their original FFL Type. Just allows them to sell and import the NFA Title II items.

Your point's are erroneous!

 

[jg1967]

As long as handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are available people should be happy.

:dance3:

As long as YOU get what YOU want everybody should be happy? TskTsk...

 

[S&W645]

Your point's are erroneous!

My point is, a Type 01 dealer is still a Type 01 dealer whether they have paid the tax or not. You cannot just pay the Class 3 SOT and be a NFA Title II dealer. You must be an FFL Type 01 to pay the Class 3 SOT tax rate. Just as the manufacturers, even if they don't exceed a certain amount in sales are still paying the Class 2 SOT to sell NFA Title II items but are also allowed to make them too. Same logic applies to Class 1 SOT. An importer can can sell NFA Type II items and so can a manufacturer, if they have paid the SOT for their category. Same items as the Type 01 FFL with a Class 3 SOT stamp. Class 3 SOT is just a tax allowing a Type 01 FFL to sell the items covered by the NFA Title II restrictions. If a Type 01 FFL loses or gives up their FFL, they also lose the Class 3 SOT stamp at the same time. If a Type 01 FFL gives up or fails to pay the Class 3 SOT when due, as long as their FFL is valid, they can still sell guns but no longer can sell the NFA Title II items. Same things apply to the other 2 classes of SOT for NFA Title II items.

 

[wigman]

That was a joke, right?

 

[Flanmedic51]

Yup, it is. Glad we agree on something.

As for the rest, do you actually believe someone who has been convicted of a crime worthy of their rights being taken away, will apply for a permit?

What will said criminal do after they are denied?

What if the criminal doesn't apply for a permit?

What if the criminal lives in a state with no permit system?

They will get a firearm anyways and carry it. So what exactly did the permit system do? Nothing.
What will happen in all the scenarios if the criminal is caught ? The exact same thing, unlawful possession of a firearm, which had nothing to do with the permit system, nor did the permit system ensure anything.

Due process = constitutional. Useful.

Permit system = useless infringement.

But hey, at least you aren't denying your elitist point of view anymore.

Yes, people with a criminal history apply for permits. For many years I ran Triple I checks for a multitude of reasons and one of those reasons was for concealed weapon permits. You don't need a permit to OC in Maine btw. But anyways, people got denied due to a bad history....thanks to DUE PROCESS and a USEFUL permit system. So lawful concealment is denied to those who can't follow the rules of the adult world...and you claim they should? What's the justification for lawful carry if they have a criminal history? The permit system ensures a lot of things. Does it prevent violent crime? Never said it did and I don't believe it does anyways. But you continue to assert opinions, I have factual information. Baseless opinions forced upon others is typically a hallmark of an elitist btw.

 

[Nightmare45]

I think we should draw the line at ICBM's and nuclear submarines...

I have worked on ICBM's and am very familiar with them, TitanII 66-69, can I please have one?

 

[Rhino]

I have worked on ICBM's and am very familiar with them, TitanII 66-69, can I please have one?

Wouldn't the submarines be a lot more fun?