Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/13/2004 5:58:24 AM EST
on hold..

sgtar15
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 5:58:51 AM EST
Get in chat.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 5:59:24 AM EST
the 1st caller had 13 rifles


2nd had 36 and reloads


Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:02:24 AM EST
#rd guy had 45!

WooT!

Gotta love California!!


Sgtar15
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:05:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:08:23 AM EST
remind them Uzi's were banned under the 89 import ban.
Remind them full auto and suppressors were banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

seems many media don't know that.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:11:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
remind them Uzi's were banned under the 89 import ban.
Remind them full auto and suppressors were banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act.

seems many media don't know that.



You dont seem to either, NFA 34 only TAXES full auto and suppressors.
If you cant get them in Ohio thats your states doing.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:50:57 AM EST
Yeah, that is a nice theory, guy, but you know and I know the NFA'34 was designed to prevent private ownership of full auto, silencers, etc. The practical effect IS a ban.

You and the gov can play all the legalistic games you want, that the 2nd Amendment is not violated by NFA because theoretically you can still own a machine gun. But not if it costs you $10,000 for a registered M16, and $200 for the tax stamp (in 1934 that was more than many made in a year), and even then, your local CLEO will likely not sign off. So tell me that is not a ban.

Give us a break on this point, huh?
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 7:21:02 AM EST
I call it the cosmetic and ergonomic features gun ban. From there the conversation goes to "What do you mean?". Then we start into how these cosmetic and ergonomic features don't effect the operation of the firearm. In the last week, I've converted two misinformed features, my boss and a soccer mom.
Top Top