Do you support legalizing all NFA items for everyone?

[T-Roy]

Wasn't that answered with spend $1000 to make $100?

It's a long thread, I could have missed something. I voted yes. NFA items have always seemed ridiculous to me.

But they don't use rifles because the cost is to great. Handguns are usually cheaper.

If you deregulate NFA items you open the door back to open bolt Mac-10 being used regularly again is drive by shooting though.

Although a Street Sweeper would be nice in my collection. Long trigger pull through, would definitely have to fix that...

I don't think he was looking for my like minded asses point of view on it. He wanted to hear from the guy who wanted to keep in NFA items on lockdown.

 

[DaveTheMinion]

While not true full auto , you can do pretty much the exact same thing. Im kinda shocked a criminal has not used one in a crime yet.

Why? Do you know how easy the conversions are? homie breaks into gunstore, steals guns, converts em. Problem?

 

[DaveTheMinion]

Also, while we may know the laws and respect them, nothing is stopping home boy from buying full auto parts.. They're not illegal to buy, just to install, but they don't care.

 

[sovietak474u]

Why? Do you know how easy the conversions are? homie breaks into gunstore, steals guns, converts em. Problem?

Homies dont convert. They get someone like you who is into guns to do it. then they pay for that service.

 

[DaveTheMinion]

Homies dont convert. They get someone like you who is into guns to do it. then they pay for that service.

I like how folks think nfa keeps machine guns outta their hands, current laws don't keep guns outta there hands..

 

[TheSnail]

If you legalized new stock, I would be out of 60k. My 15-20k MGs would become 3-4k. So I vote no unless I was given a heads up to sell my MGs at their current value.

 

[sovietak474u]

If you legalized new stock, I would be out of 60k. My 15-20k MGs would become 3-4k. So I vote no unless I was given a heads up to sell my MGs at their current value.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

I say yes, but I believe full auto would have to require some sort of safety training to own. Everything else is stupid and isn't even debatable imo.

 

[DMGun]

Are you serious? The first amendment was written when there was simply quill and ink. Not only have we moved through the printing press, and word processors, we now have the interweb! You think that would have been written differently too?
It's mean to protect us from an oppressive government. Period. That was the intent, that IS the intent. Why would you diminish it's very intent by restricting the arms citizens can own?

I am not saying that they would not write it the same way or that they shouldn't. I understand the intent of the amendment to protect our God given right to allow us to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, but many do not.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I am not saying that they would not write it the same way or that they shouldn't. I understand the intent of the amendment to protect our God given right to allow us to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, but many do not.

Good. I misunderstood apparently.
I hope they would write it differently, I hope they'd write, "A well armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free state by insuring the right and responsibility of the people to offer equivalent defense to an oppresive government, and to aid their God given right to self defense, the right of the people to keep and bear arms and all related accouterments of a type and quantity of their choosing, at any time and any place, shall not be infringed."
But in reality, that IS what it currently says just more succinctly. Idiots and those with ill intent probably could apparently use more words....