Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
National firearms act
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 2220062" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>Don't think the Federal government is making a whole heck of a lot of money on the NFA tax stamp, a one time per weapon (for a given owner or his legal heir) fee of $200.00.</p><p></p><p>The bill probably won't be overturned because no one of significance in Congress is trying to and because the main talking point that the NRA (and others) uses against any so-called "assault weapons" ban is that they aren't fully automatic military grade weapons. In the assault ban discussion we, rightly, make a great deal of support by showing that the ban supporters are either ignorant or being deceptive. </p><p></p><p>Well, you can't use that argument if the NFA weapon is, in fact, a fully auto "military grade" weapon can you? In the general public's mind there is a great prejudice against anyone other than the military, and perhaps some police, owning fully automatic weapons. Likewise there is a, to my mind much sillier, prejudice against suppressors/silencers which thanks to the movies have become associated with spies and assassins only. I wish everyone at the range had a suppressor so that my hearing was much better protected during a day of shooting.</p><p></p><p>As to what I think of the NFA, I think that suppressors should be more readily available as they have very practical noise abatement value and I don't see any particluar risk of crime sky-rocketing because of them. And I think that the average citizen should be able to own and train with the standard pistol/rifle that the U.S. military uses in combat without having to go through any special legal hurdles. Hurdles that to me do seem to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" language. I also think that any a**hole who uses any weapon (pick your choice) to harm innocents should be dealt with swiftly and severely including administering the death penalty.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2220062, member: 18914"] Don't think the Federal government is making a whole heck of a lot of money on the NFA tax stamp, a one time per weapon (for a given owner or his legal heir) fee of $200.00. The bill probably won't be overturned because no one of significance in Congress is trying to and because the main talking point that the NRA (and others) uses against any so-called "assault weapons" ban is that they aren't fully automatic military grade weapons. In the assault ban discussion we, rightly, make a great deal of support by showing that the ban supporters are either ignorant or being deceptive. Well, you can't use that argument if the NFA weapon is, in fact, a fully auto "military grade" weapon can you? In the general public's mind there is a great prejudice against anyone other than the military, and perhaps some police, owning fully automatic weapons. Likewise there is a, to my mind much sillier, prejudice against suppressors/silencers which thanks to the movies have become associated with spies and assassins only. I wish everyone at the range had a suppressor so that my hearing was much better protected during a day of shooting. As to what I think of the NFA, I think that suppressors should be more readily available as they have very practical noise abatement value and I don't see any particluar risk of crime sky-rocketing because of them. And I think that the average citizen should be able to own and train with the standard pistol/rifle that the U.S. military uses in combat without having to go through any special legal hurdles. Hurdles that to me do seem to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" language. I also think that any a**hole who uses any weapon (pick your choice) to harm innocents should be dealt with swiftly and severely including administering the death penalty. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
National firearms act
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom