Happy Tuesday to you as well. (Reply #32)

In the discussion thread: Ammunition is not covered by the 2A [View all]

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:49 AM

32. Happy Tuesday to you as well.

For what it's worth, I think the 1934 NFA is legal, even per the 2nd Amendment, and I would advocate to re-open the registry, and extend it down to cover semi-auto weapons as well. (and reduce the fee)

I think that's a workable, legal, and likely effective use of legislation to actual curb gun violence. The NFA has a 80 year record of effectiveness, curtailing violence with fully automatic weapons.

I'd like to see *something effective* done, and I think that's an option.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

64 replies	Author	Time	Post
Ammunition is not covered by the 2A [View all]	hack89	Dec 2014	OP
Why should they? n/t	oneshooter	Dec 2014	#1
Color me befuddled - What the heck are you talking about? nt	Xipe Totec	Dec 2014	#2
In a reply to a post in GD:	NYC_SKP	Dec 2014	#9
I tend to think this is why Skinner, et al, banished Gun issues to the Gungeon.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#26
Indeed, same with religion and all matters Israel/Palestine.	NYC_SKP	Dec 2014	#29
Happy Tuesday to you as well.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#32
All guns under the NFA that weren't manufactured & registered by 1986 are banned.	kioa	Dec 2014	#35
The registry can be re-opened.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#36
And it could be re-closed. Or used to confiscate, as it has so often.	kioa	Dec 2014	#41
The NFA registry was not used to confiscate.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#43
The NFA registry was used to ban every gun not made & registered by 1986.	kioa	Dec 2014	#44
Other countries are uninteresting to this question.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#45
In the interest of not splitting hairs...	kioa	Dec 2014	#46
By your logic, the democratic party should already be trounced by the hughes amendment.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#47
There's a very big difference between a nearly 80	kioa	Dec 2014	#48
The Hughes Amendment isn't 80 years old.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#49
Gun Control was the only issue that led to recalls prior to 2014.	kioa	Dec 2014	#50
Nationally, 2014 was neutral about gun control.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#53
I594 had a 7-to-1 spending advantage & only passed 60-40	kioa	Dec 2014	#55
Yet, 60% approved that horrible implementation of background checks.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#56
i594 is horrible. It is going to be openly violated on the steps of the Statehouse.	kioa	Dec 2014	#59
It's not difficult to make ammo. ...	spin	Dec 2014	#51
you mean like this?	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2014	#3
Did you read the part where it said the bullets were protected by the 2A?	hack89	Dec 2014	#10
SF? They don't allow sales of Hollow Points but they do allow butt-naked dining outdoors.	NYC_SKP	Dec 2014	#20
The next time somebody gets killed by a dining naked butt you let me know, 'kay?	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2014	#24
Banning hollow point rounds is a danger to bystanders.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#27
My earliest lesson in gun safety was related to this topic, tangentially.	NYC_SKP	Dec 2014	#39
What's surprising is...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Dec 2014	#37
Hey why don't you understand railroad law?	upaloopa	Dec 2014	#4
Opinions.	Straw Man	Dec 2014	#5
You gunners need new material.	upaloopa	Dec 2014	#11
Ignorant and proud.	Straw Man	Dec 2014	#21
You don't know what I know so you too are ignorant.	upaloopa	Dec 2014	#38
"Waste of time" but here you are back again and again, like yesterday's cabbage	DonP	Dec 2014	#40
I don't opine on things about which I know nothing.	Straw Man	Dec 2014	#42
Do you want laws or do you want effective laws?	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2014	#25
Your ignorance suits me fine	hack89	Dec 2014	#7
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, just as we are entitled to ignore your opinion	Lurks Often	Dec 2014	#8
U.S. Code: Title 45-RAILROADS	sarisataka	Dec 2014	#17
What do you mean, "none of us are lawyers?"	branford	Dec 2014	#22
My right wing relatives say almost the same exact thing when I try and educate	kelly1mm	Dec 2014	#58
Ah, How I love when people violate the SOP of the General Discussion Forum. But what a GENIUS!	NYC_SKP	Dec 2014	#6
neither are tanks and nuclear bombs but both are somewhat restricted nt	msongs	Dec 2014	#12
Actually ammunition is covered by the 2A	hack89	Dec 2014	#13
You can buy a tank on the open market. All it takes is $. n/t	oneshooter	Dec 2014	#23
Paul Allan	sarisataka	Dec 2014	#31
"Where there's a will, there's a weapon."	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Dec 2014	#57
Herrington v. United States (2010) seems to provide some guidance here:	petronius	Dec 2014	#14
Thank you. Nt	hack89	Dec 2014	#15
Aw, you RUINED IT.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#28
All they know is bullets explode, and explosives kill people just like guns.	ileus	Dec 2014	#16
Oh you naughty, naughty boy.	pablo_marmol	Dec 2014	#19
They don't just explode, they highly explode!	NYC_SKP	Dec 2014	#30
Well, when you're so warm from the explosion, it makes sense to take off your jacket.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#33
One relevant Supreme Court ruling, in addition to D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v Chicago...	benEzra	Dec 2014	#18
Yes, this was well-trodden legal ground, regardless of the topic here being guns.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2014	#34
Gun control "Scholars" tend to be a little short sighted	DonP	Dec 2014	#52
"It never ceases to amaze me"...	NaturalHigh	Dec 2014	#54
What cracks me up is that the poster is exercising first amendment rights on a computer.	badtoworse	Dec 2014	#60
Well, that poster is entitled to express their opinion on the internet --	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2014	#61
Anyway you look at it, it's a bullshit argument.	badtoworse	Dec 2014	#62
I am confused as to which poster you are referring to	hack89	Dec 2014	#63
The poster commenting on the 2A and ammo.	badtoworse	Dec 2014	#64

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.