Please, please be very careful in your wording of your responses to the anti's arguments, especially regarding fully automatic, select fire weapons. Never agree they are already banned for private ownership. They are not. There are lots of hoops to jump and outrageous fees involved, but you can own one. There are too many fuzzy logic arguments used already. We need to keep from giving them any more ammunition. My $.02 fwiw.
A little clarification.....
- Thread starter skb675
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
usmc_mech02
Member
- Jan 4, 2013
- 87
i have been politley reminding them that you need a class 3 license to own a military grade weapon.
usmc_mech02
Member
- Jan 4, 2013
- 87
thats why its called fear mongering. and none of the gunb grabbers want anything to do with fact.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
But the registry is closed. So any new supply is banned. The intent is to ban a class of weapons, which may or may not be militia weapons. If it were me I would not touch the issue. They will claim any class of weapons may be banned in the future, as long as the existing stock pile is not banned. And the court is ok with it because it has not been struck down.
Its a non issue to them anyway. They really are not more afraid of black rifles, they are more politically afraid of hunters. IMHO you play their game if you talk weapon types.
" so you are ok with a ban on full auto, but why not semi auto as well, I mean Why do you need it "
You are DOA.
The burden of prof, if you want to restrict a fundamental right is on those who who restrict that right."
I wish I could remember the citation for that.
Last edited:
Dreamquencher
Grammar Nazgûl
It was you! http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=106250
Google knows of no other, good sir. Claim credit, plant your flag, and say, "Arrr, Mateys! I claim this quote for meself!"
Considering that most people can't name the century in which our American War of Independence occurred, you will have few naysayers.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you never know if they're accurate." Abraham Lincoln
rem87062597
Annapolis, MD
- Jul 13, 2012
- 641
I don't think it has been challenged. In my opinion it could possibly be struck down, but there's a very specific order that we must win court cases in order to build up a perfect argument.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Its from a case I read really. I may have paraphrased, but i did not invent.. esp when its the law...
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Agreed Agreed Agreed. Not struck down does not mean constitutional..
But it is a Favorite tripe of our opposition to suggest as much . It is hard to counter quickly given the base level of education. I think the fallacy is called
"Denying the Antecedent", but its been a while, and to me it is much easier to only use valid inference rules than to remember all the ways not to screw up
Last edited:
I understand that there aren't new full auto's being made, but that's not the point. If you agree with any of their points it undermines the whole argument. By law you MAY still own a full auto. THAT IS THE POINT.
Also discussing "military vs. civilian" weapons is a fallacy. There's no practical difference between them. Does anyone really believe that all these firearms were made by people that sat around thinking, "Well, if we make this one for the Army, we'll make a little cheaper one for anyone else." All firearms evolved on the battlefield. They are a tool. Just like hammers, screwdrivers, etc.
The anti's take any agreement as support for their position. Give them nothing.
Also discussing "military vs. civilian" weapons is a fallacy. There's no practical difference between them. Does anyone really believe that all these firearms were made by people that sat around thinking, "Well, if we make this one for the Army, we'll make a little cheaper one for anyone else." All firearms evolved on the battlefield. They are a tool. Just like hammers, screwdrivers, etc.
The anti's take any agreement as support for their position. Give them nothing.
Maybe it's time to meet the Anti's head-on with the facts: the ATF says that just in MD alone there are more than 23,000 "machine guns", yet can anyone point to a problem with them? It demonstrates that private citizens are surrounded by them but because we go to a lot of trouble to make sure criminals and crazy people don't have them we never hear bad things about them. This is the proof that it is not the type of firearms that we should be concerned about but the type of citizen who has access.
rem87062597
Annapolis, MD
- Jul 13, 2012
- 641
The next logical jump in this argument is that everything should be just as regulated as machine guns. Be careful.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
C&R/Milsurp 2 Gun Action Match - AGC Action Shooting - June 2, 2024- Started by Red1917
- Replies: 5
-