Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Crabtownboy, Jan 7, 2016.
Sigh, would someone explain to crabby and all extreme left wing liberals that no one owns a "machine gun". If you are going to criticize something be sure what you are criticizing is something that actually exists.
Would someone explain to Rev. those were Reagan's words, not mine?
Also would someone explain to Rev. that there are people who own machine guns legally.
Also it would appear that Rev. does not know what the definition of machine gun is ... so here is some help for the man.
It is against US law to own a full automatic weapon. No one in the US legally owns one. Just because it is an AK-47 does not mean it is fully automatic or a "machine gun".
This rhetoric is false and is DNC talking points that has been repeated lately by Obama, Senate Dems and the ladies on the view.
Now this lie is being repeated here.
The National Firearms Act was enacted on June 26, 1934, and outlaws machine guns in the hands of non-military persons or a person holding a Federal Firearms License with a tax stamp allowing the manufacture and possession of such a firearm.
For civilian possession, all machine guns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens. Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed to manufacture firearms or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) could manufacture machine guns after that date, and they can only be sold to government, law-enforcement, and military entities. Transfer can only be done to other SOT FFL-holders, and such FFL-holders must have a "demonstration letter" from a respective government agency to receive such machine guns. Falsification and/or misuse of the "demo-letter" process can and has resulted in long jail sentences and felony convictions for violators.
So, Reagan was wrong. First, the AK-47, in its present incarnation, is not a machine gun. It is a semi-automatic, not fully automatic. But Reagan was well known for not knowing a whole lot about firearms. He was the one that signed into law one of the most egregious anti-gun laws ever passed in the US, the Mulford Act. (Google it.)
Not totally correct.
Notice the comma in Reagan's quote. That makes a difference. If the quote read, "an AK-47 a machine gun it has one meaning. By adding the comma it changes the meaning. Regardless there is a legal way to own a machine gun.
Procedure for Acquiring Machine Guns
An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval, from its lawful owner residing in the same state as the individual (27 CFR §§ 479.84 & 479.105). The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer
and executed under penalties of perjury, and pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF. The application must include detailed information on the firearm and the parties to the transfer (26 USC § 5812 & 27 CFR § 479.84).
The transferee must certify on the application that he or she is not disqualified from possessing firearms on grounds specified in law. He or she must submit with the application (1) two photographs taken within the past year; (2) fingerprints; and (3) a copy of any state or local permit or license required to buy, possess, or acquire machine guns (27 CFR § 479.85).
An appropriate law enforcement official must also certify whether he or she has any information indicating that the firearm will be used for other than lawful purposes or that possession would violate state or federal law (27 CFR § 479.85).
Approvals and Denials. Anyone acquiring a machine gun must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation. If ATF denies an application, it must refund the tax. Gun owners must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers.
OK, so Reagan was wrong then. I've never done it, but it would be extreme fun to me to shoot off a fully automatic weapon. That makes it a sport to me. No reason I shouldn't be able to do it.
Once again, laws don't stop criminals. Let's stop pretending they do.
Yes. It is called the Oxford Comma and does not change the meaning of the sentence. All it does is provide a descriptive clause telling us the AK47 is a machine gun. Which is wrong.
And I posted the exception to the NFA requiring an FFL and Tax Stamp to own a fully automatic firearm.
Just stop the definition of a so called "machine gun" is so loose that it includes guns not able to fire multiple round bursts but can be restored to be. It is a misnomer at best and most likely political. It is illegal to own a fully automatic gun.
Further, there is no reason that the general public should be outgunned by the government. We should all be allowed to have fully automatic guns.
No, it is not. There are exceptions.
A machine gun is sorta like a pet elephant. Fun, but very expensive to feed.
These guys can help, but bring your checkbook.
I would like to see one of the machine gun shoots at Knob Creek one day.
And I took this pic of my boy a few years ago, on the day that Mikhail Kalashnikov passed away.
We have a neighbor that has legal fully automatic guns, which we hear him shooting once in awhile.
From what I have seen on the subject of them being fun to shoot, it seems the novelty wears off pretty fast, and then there is the cost of all that ammo that kills the thrill.
As far as the OP, what difference does it make if it is a AK47 or AR15. They are legal, and good for sport, and self protection. When you get right down to it, why are fully automatic guns considered unlawful.
Because, during the failed social experiment we call prohibition, the criminal underclass, created by prohibition, favored the Thompson 1921 sub machine gun. So, rather than accepting the blame for the violence created by the 18th amendment, the politicians blamed the gun, as usual.
Yeah, the reasons for the laws don't add up.
In the Miller case, the Supreme Court upheld the ban on short barreled (sawed off) shotguns because they said they served no military/militia purpose and weren't protected by the 2nd Amendment.
And then they ban machine guns. Or at least try to tax them out of the average man's price range and ban those made after 1986.
Paul answered by saying that civilians can’t legally own automatic weapons outright without getting a permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Civilian ownership was virtually banned by the National Firearms Act of 1934. And obtaining a NFA permit means your firearm will be registered by the ATF.
No they are not legal
Legal machine guns, after the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 GCA, are like a simple lesson in economics. The date to have them made and registered is passed. So it is impossible to make any more pre-86 legally transferable machine guns.
Now you have a finite supply, with a slowly increasing demand. M16s that cost 300 bucks to make back in the day now cost 15K or more. I heard only 3 M240s made it on the list, and the last one for sale hit a quarter million.