What % of American pop would have to revolt against the gov't to stand a chance??????

Originally Posted by JonJon

A semi automatic AR or AK is not an assault rifle.

Again.... "Assault Rifles" are a very specific item. They are select burst fire or automatic fire. ONLY pre-banned "Assault Rifles" that were made/registered prior to 1986 can be owned by civilians (non-Leo,etc). Anything after that date can NOT.

"Assault Weapon" is some Bradyville, retarded term that means any gun that is colored black, has a piece of plastic to hold on to or a scary.... thing that goes up.

You could of just stated you were mistaken and we could move on.





Oh yea.... FOPA and the Hughes Amendment sunset'ed a decade ago?
Cite please

"The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon."

Common definition. I admit that in my partially drunken state I incorrectly referenced what "assault weapon ban" expiration occurred. Either way, the commonly accepted definition of "assault" weapon is not banned. I referred to the 1994 AWB and in my correction of your previously false assertion regarding the 1980's firearm laws my mind mistakenly referred to the "AWB" which has expired (which, by the way, was not the term used for the guns banned by the Hughes amendment or any other provision of that law in the 80's).

FOPA never contained the term "assault weapon" by the way. To try and apply it to FOPA post-hoc is misleading and it is disingenuous.

So your last post confirmed my correctness


Please still PM me where I can get some new, post ban automatic ARs

I know someone who ordered a lower for an ar that he was building. all paperwork says its semi-auto but the company f'd up and its not...lucky asshole

Originally Posted by BMWh0r3

I know someone who ordered a lower for an ar that he was building. all paperwork says its semi-auto but the company f'd up and its not...lucky asshole

Owning something in violation of federal and state law is not what I would consider "lucky".

PS: Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear (especially from a buddy of a buddy)

I admitted I stated something incorrect. You aren't daft, you know that. You also know that using the word "assault rifle" and saying they are "banned" is a falsehood with the common definition of "assault rifle". Get on the same page as everyone else or avoid the conversation. You aren't helping our cause by failing to acknowledge that what the public calls an "assault rifle" isn't something that is currently illegal or banned. In fact, you are intentionally complicating issues and making the pro-2nd Amendment side as one who must "draw a line in the sand". We aren't fighting to restore what we've lost for now right now, we're trying to preserve what we have. Complicating that issue is terrible for preserving rights. You're being difficult regarding this issue and the specifics. It doesn't come down to that right now. We can choose to stick with the argument the public is discussing or we can try and expand it to things that are even more scary to the terrified public or we can stick with the argument at hand.

We're barely hanging on with the argument at hand though, so if you want to make it harder for us keep up with this charade then you can keep up with your apparent crusade. If you want to maintain or expand our rights, however, I highly suggest you re-think your arguments regarding this issue. Make no mistake, the issue will not be resolved based on logic and reason if we try to restore everything right now. It won't help, it can only hinder our efforts. Your posts, and their implication, carry nothing that helps to advance our rights in today's political climate. I'm sorry if that is blunt, but it is the truth. Either help us try to hold on to our rights in the face of significant opposition or shut up until the debate you appear to be itching for can be conceivably won. Right now, it can't. Bringing it up simply makes holding on to what rights we have less certain. Do you get that JJ? "YOU" are hurting the argument for 2nd Amendment rights in today's political and sociological climate with the "arguments" you are bringing up. It matters nothing how I feel about FOPA. It matters nothing about how I feel about any other past legislation. The reality today is that we can't fight those fights and win. Bringing them to the table in the midst of the current debates simply harms the cause of 2nd Amendment believers everywhere. As such, it hurts the cause of all of those who believe in any rights at all.

Originally Posted by BMWh0r3

I know someone who ordered a lower for an ar that he was building. all paperwork says its semi-auto but the company f'd up and its not...lucky asshole

You do know that it is not the lower that makes the gun full or semi auto right? It is a small part inside, that if it is changed or modified, it will become full auto.

Thing is, the penalty for this is not only extreme for the owner, but the manufacturer as well. Any reputable shop manufacturing and selling lowers (stripped or assembled) would not have blindly sold a full auto lower to anyone, without the correct paperwork.

Sorry, but that guy you know, is lying, and completely full of sh!t.

hence why I will not divulge who or how I know said person. it's saved for a rainy day. its not me. i'm not that much of a crazy redneck. lol

edit: seen it being assembled the same day. he did not modify it himself. no bs.

Originally Posted by Wraisil

I admitted I stated something incorrect. You aren't daft, you know that. You also know that using the word "assault rifle" and saying they are "banned" is a falsehood with the common definition of "assault rifle". Get on the same page as everyone else or avoid the conversation. You aren't helping our cause by failing to acknowledge that what the public calls an "assault rifle" isn't something that is currently illegal or banned. In fact, you are intentionally complicating issues and making the pro-2nd Amendment side as one who must "draw a line in the sand". We aren't fighting to restore what we've lost for now right now, we're trying to preserve what we have. Complicating that issue is terrible for preserving rights. You're being difficult regarding this issue and the specifics. It doesn't come down to that right now. We can choose to stick with the argument the public is discussing or we can try and expand it to things that are even more scary to the terrified public or we can stick with the argument at hand.

We're barely hanging on with the argument at hand though, so if you want to make it harder for us keep up with this charade then you can keep up with your apparent crusade. If you want to maintain or expand our rights, however, I highly suggest you re-think your arguments regarding this issue. Make no mistake, the issue will not be resolved based on logic and reason if we try to restore everything right now. It won't help, it can only hinder our efforts. Your posts, and their implication, carry nothing that helps to advance our rights in today's political climate. I'm sorry if that is blunt, but it is the truth. Either help us try to hold on to our rights in the face of significant opposition or shut up until the debate you appear to be itching for can be conceivably won. Right now, it can't. Bringing it up simply makes holding on to what rights we have less certain. Do you get that JJ? "YOU" are hurting the argument for 2nd Amendment rights in today's political and sociological climate with the "arguments" you are bringing up. It matters nothing how I feel about FOPA. It matters nothing about how I feel about any other past legislation. The reality today is that we can't fight those fights and win. Bringing them to the table in the midst of the current debates simply harms the cause of 2nd Amendment believers everywhere. As such, it hurts the cause of all of those who believe in any rights at all.

Hear that JJ? Grab all the clips you can grab and load em' up with cop killers. This barrel shroud isn't going shoot someone on it's own.

Originally Posted by BMWh0r3

hence why I will not divulge who or how I know said person. it's saved for a rainy day. its not me. i'm not that much of a crazy redneck. lol

edit: seen it being assembled the same day. he did not modify it himself. no bs.

Sorry, but you are wrong. If it was full auto, two things happened.

1: He bought an illegally manufactured machine gun, and will face criminal charges
2: He modified the inner parts to be full auto, and you did not notice.

Either way, your statement is now saved, regardless if you edit it or not, and any law enforcement officer looking to keep this kind of thing off the streets, can read your statement and go after you for the info on who it is.

Sorry, but even if it was true, why would you brag about it? You know it is a serious offense to have an unlicensed post ban machine gun, right? Like say hello to Bubba in cell block d for 10 years of your life kinda bad.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

like I said...not my gun. why would I care if they read about it on here? its the internet...its all just talk, right? the state farm commercial about not lying on the internet is example... lol

skimmed through your link. knowledge of full auto owners does not appear incriminating. fvck the atf lol

Originally Posted by Wraisil

We aren't fighting to restore what we've lost for now right now, we're trying to preserve what we have.

That's where we disagree I guess. You keep riding the wave of keeping what you got today and one day you'll realize how far off you've drifted from where we all started. I have very little compromise like you seem to have. I wouldn't be satisfied until we have federal constitutional, shall issue carry and unregulated/unregistered private transfers of firearms.

I'm the problem? That's where I'll bow out and respectfully disagree with you. People that share your thoughts are the ones making it harder on the rest of us.
The worst offenders to the 2nd Amendment are not Antis... It's gun owners with their priorities askew

Originally Posted by JonJon

That's where we disagree I guess. You keep riding the wave of keeping what you got today and one day you'll realize how far off you've drifted from where we all started. I have very little compromise

The inability to compromise has been the downfall of many people. If we lose what we have today then we sure as hell won't be likely to get what we had back.

Originally Posted by BMWh0r3

like I said...not my gun. why would I care if they read about it on here? its the internet...its all just talk, right? the state farm commercial about not lying on the internet is example... lol

skimmed through your link. knowledge of full auto owners does not appear incriminating. fvck the atf lol

The problem is that it is a serious violation, and you would be involved. You might not get in trouble, but you might have to answer some questions and you might have to testify.

And it makes legal owners look bad when a person is manufacturing modified semis, especially in my state.

Originally Posted by Wraisil

The inability to compromise has been the downfall of many people. If we lose what we have today then we sure as hell won't be likely to get what we had back.

Ah, but we lose what we had tomorrow by which we compromise away today.

Originally Posted by JonJon

Ah, but we lose what we had tomorrow by which we compromise away today.

Tomorrow, or yesterday? Seems to me you are fighting for the latter...

Sent from my ADR6400L using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by kaput

The problem is that it is a serious violation, and you would be involved. You might not get in trouble, but you might have to answer some questions and you might have to testify.

And it makes legal owners look bad when a person is manufacturing modified semis, especially in my state.

then don't travel over the mountain when the zombies come.

Originally Posted by Wraisil

Oh year, Xcelratr, please come back to this discussion when logic and reason are no longer eluding you. It is a waste of time to engage in a debate with someone who cannot use such simple tools to comprehend what is said and I don't feel like wasting my time with someone who can't use them right now.

I'll be right here if you want to pull your head out of your ass and re-read what you wrote and my response.

And then you have the nerve to lecture JJ about how not to argue for gun rights?

What about class 3 licenses?

Originally Posted by Raymond42262

What about class 3 licenses?

What about them?