Wrong-o. There's no such thing as a class III weapon or a class III licence - it doesn't exist - commonly believed myth. The NFA of 1934 regulates things like rifles and shotguns with barrels shorter than 10 inches or which are capable of fully automatic fire to be regulated federaly (by BATF) by the issuance of tax stamps for the transfer of ownership of such weapons. There's no weapons classing system in the act, and certainly no "class III" (though you might be able to accurately refer to them as "section 2 weapons"). Also, there's no fedearly required permit to obtain a tax stamp for the transfer of ownership of one of these weapons. Here's a helpfull link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_E_20_53.html Well I certainly don't see how self defence factors into it. The constiution doesn't say anything about self defence, only the defence of the state. That aside, you'll note that the second amendment also says to "keep and bear arms" [emphasis mine, though the framers would have done well to do it themselves considering how often this clause is overlooked). The constiution isn't just securing the right to own a weapon - to keep it in a glass case and maybe take it out when no one can see it - it gives you the right to BEAR that arm. In other words all these silly laws about not being able to walk around openly carying or shouldering a weapon are unconstiutional, there's no reason that I shouldn't be able to wave my .44 around all I like. I like all of my freedoms as well, but not even the NRA seems willing to stand up for this one!
Really now? that's a very interesting interpretation considering. Popular with gun-nuts though it may be, however, it's not reflected at all in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear that it's sitting there to help protect the state - not individuals. It makes a lot of sense in the context of the time in which it was written - militias were pretty well all we had to fight the British and there was no real formal standing Army to speak of (though Militias were also much more militaristic and organized than the fraternities of fat beer drinking rednecks to which we apply the name today).
thats a very good point,keep AND bear arms does mean you can carry it concealed or out in the open. i bet a gun on your hip will reduce violent crime more then just knowing someone COULD have a concealed weapon. we should make this america again.
Violent crime rates have been dropping quite steadily from 1970s levels through the 80s and 90s, do you have a resource to any study which links this to laxer measures in gun control? I could say that the radical crime reductions in the 90s were due to the '94 assault weapons ban, but it doesn't make it so. Also you and some of the other posters here keep citing an 80% reduction in violent crime since the passing of that "stand your ground" law in Florida (which was only a few months ago, wasn't it?) who's numbers are you citing here? Let's see some sources.
Who can't own fully automatic weapons? There's no ban on 'em in the US - they're federally regulated through taxation, not illegal.
Hmm well for my part I have a problem with you stating the phrase as it if it means something. I can pull any definition out of my ass as well, but it doesn't mean it has any bearing on this discussion. Tell me, how does "any man capable of bearing arms" mesh with "Well regulated"?
Mystech, I'm curious ....what else will you permit the goverment to take from us? I mean, if you're okay with them taking our guns, what will you say when they want to take something else ...citing the taking of guns as a precedent? Baron Max
1 Some people are just hooplaphobes and want to ban everything that they don't like 2 It is not constitional and will be struck down 3 Actually it was Lenin and Hitler but that is true
hooplaphobes? you mean useless trenders,they just do whatever the tv/media tells them to do,or whatever is ''popular'' at the moment.thats why suvs are everywhere,its not becasue they are superior to cars,or safer,or handle better ,or get better milage,its becasue there are WAY too many stupid people who are incapable of forming their own opnions.
its was created to protect all the other rights we should have. if people would shoot retards when they try and take away your rights,people would eventualy stop trying to take them away.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm in favor of the government taking away anyone's guns. I think you're trying too hard to read things into my posts.
To put things in a slightly weirder perspective, we'd have an awful lot of gays shooting people if this were the case. We'd also have a lot of black people shooting people, but I don't think anyone would find that idea to be terribly shocking.
it worked for the blacks in the 60s. once they got violent about their civil rights being reppressed and white people started dying because of it,majicly they became equal citizens and the laws were changed. if every one who wanted weed legal would go outside in the street on 4/20/2006 at 4:20 with a blunt and a gun and shot anyone who tried to stop them,weed would be legal the next day.along with our right to bear arms. violence forces people to pay attention.
Yes, there is. You need a class III license to sell or transfer a fully automatic weapon. How else are you going to acquire one? True, there's no "federal" law (although state law is completely different) requiring you to have one to OWN a fully automatic weapon, but as I said, it's hard as hell getting one. Just like with trying to get a concealed weapon permit, you have to get approval from local law enforcement and ATF and you better have a good reason. For those that think getting a concealed weapons permit is hard, heh, have fun trying to own a fully automatic weapon. Just paying taxes on it doesn't mean you're gonna automatically be able to have one. And not to mention, a fully automatic weapon is going to cost 10x the amount as the same semi-auto one. And this is all if the state you live in allows fully automatic weapons. Unfortunately in Kalifornia, you can't unless you're in the military, law enforcement, or as I said earlier, a firearms dealer with a class III license. Heck, there's tons of semi-automatic weapons you can't even own, and they're all mainly based on how they look, not operate, heh. I won't even get into the limited "evil" features aspect. More ignorant laws and reasoning right there. Not ONLY taxation. As I said, you have to be approved by local law enforcement and the ATF on top of paying for all the forms to get it. It can cost quite a few hundred dollars just to fill out forms, and that in no way guarantees you'll get approved. Quit doing the liberal Brady trick of wording things to make it sound as if fully automatic weapons are easy to acquire and that our streets will be flooded with them. - N
you can still shoot people with a semi auto weapon,full auto just means youll miss 29 times out of 30 and be out of ammo after 3 seconds. semi auto is the prefered form of shooting something,its more accurate,conserves ammo,and its cheap and legal. or you can just use an electric cam over the trigger to pull it very fast and it will apear to be full auto while still being legal,
I have a wife, four kids, and a nanny. No vehicle but an SUV has enough room for us all except maybe a conversion ban, but the SUV is a lot nicer. Also, it pisses off liberals.
