The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[PointOfViewGun]

No, but your article does mention him using an automatic M-16.

And guess what? It was not an M-16, but an AR-15. They do not make legal fully automatic AR-15s for civilian sale.

Or just not mention it since illegally modified assault rifles aren't exactly new. But why would the news or the police for that matter miss him owning an NFA license for an automatic assault rifle?

And one of the rifles he used that was automatic was an AR-15, which they do not sale automatic versions of to civilians. So if the AR-15 as your article indicates was automatic, it was illegally modified.

We can not say these assault rifles were legal when there is no evidence that they were. The police wouldn't have missed him owning a license for NFA-type weapons.

Is it not possible to register a customized AR-15 as a fully automatic weapon?

You can not say they were illegal. You don't have any source saying that, or do you?

[Vanoi]

Is it not possible to register a customized AR-15 as a fully automatic weapon?

No. They do not make legally fully automatic assault rifles for civilian sale anymore in the US. Any legal fully automatic assault rifle has to be imported, which costs a ton of money (250k last time i checked just to import the weapon) or the weapon would have had to be made before 1986.

And then you need an NFA weapon license.

You can not say they were illegal.

Oh, i can, since there is no evidence once so ever these were legal fully automatic assault rifles.

Like i said, the police wouldn't have missed him owning an NFA weapon license.

You don't have any source saying that, or do you?

Don't need one. Lack of evidence is in my favor.

[PointOfViewGun]

No. They do not make legally fully automatic assault rifles for civilian sale anymore in the US. Any legal fully automatic assault rifle has to be imported, which costs a ton of money (250k last time i checked just to import the weapon) or the weapon would have had to be made before 1986.

And then you need an NFA weapon license.

That's not what I said. Please read what I write carefully. I asked if it's not possible to register a customized AR-15. I'm not talking about manufacturing but getting the gun customized in a shop and registering it as such.

Oh, i can, since there is no evidence once so ever these were legal fully automatic assault rifles.

Like i said, the police wouldn't have missed him owning an NFA weapon license.

Don't need one. Lack of evidence is in my favor.

You don't have much evidence that it's illegal as well, only your own opinion. It's strange to see your standards for sources change so quickly. Find me a source that mentions illegality of the guns.

The news report wouldn't have missed him illegally obtaining or modifying the guns as well.

[Vanoi]

That's not what I said. Please read what I write carefully. I asked if it's not possible to register a customized AR-15.

No, its not. Selling an AR-15 converted to fully automatic is illegal.

I'm not talking about manufacturing but getting the gun customized in a shop and registering it as such.

That would be illegally converting the rifle and would violate the National Firearms Act.

You don't have much evidence that it's illegal as well, only your own opinion. It's strange to see your standards for sources change so quickly. Find me a source that mentions illegality of the guns.

Illegality of what? Its common knowledge. Do you not understand US law? Fully automatic assault rifles are heavily regulated in the US.

If he actually legally owned one, we would have evidence of such. He would have registered the weapon with the ATF. He would have an NFA license. Does the news or police mention any of that? Nope.

The news report wouldn't have missed him illegally obtaining or modifying the guns as well.

but the police and news would just miss him owning a NFA license. Right?

All we can say at this point was the guns were automatic.

[Mithridate]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I usually don't respond to people like you who judge a persons nettitude based of one reply.

Really, just one?

(Bringing statistics to liberals won't change though as the value of them lies in the eyes of the beholder, and that persons ideology. )

If youve lost hope then please stay out of it so those whom actually debate and enlighten can keep at it?

Sorry, I shall return to lurking

[Arch]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Really, just one?

If youve lost hope then please stay out of it so those whom actually debate and enlighten can keep at it?

Sorry, I shall return to lurking

You made a picture for me, how cute.

Do you see yourself as an "enlightener"?

And where did I say that I lost hope? Most liberals mature from adolescence sooner or later

Edit: Heres some light even for you.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, its not. Selling an AR-15 converted to fully automatic is illegal.

That would be illegally converting the rifle and would violate the National Firearms Act.

Care to provide the relevant section?

Illegality of what? Its common knowledge. Do you not understand US law? Fully automatic assault rifles are heavily regulated in the US.

If he actually legally owned one, we would have evidence of such. He would have registered the weapon with the ATF. He would have an NFA license. Does the news or police mention any of that? Nope.

but the police and news would just miss him owning a NFA license. Right?

All we can say at this point was the guns were automatic.

Common Knowledge? Ohh, the irony... I take it you don't have any sources.

You're not hiding your selective use of facts as well. You use lack of NFA license information as an indication of illegality of the weapons yet you ignore the fact that no where on any of the articles online they mention an illegal modification to the weapons. That's the second irony.

I take it now you're gonna whine and cry and then claim what a wall I am?


Here is an other shooting spree with an assault rifle.

[Ciabhán]

The auto-sear alone(a drop in kit that includes the pieces that convert to auto) is considered a machine gun for legal purposes. Therefore without special license it is illegal to own those parts even if they are not in a rifle.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/down...appendix-b.pdf

All automatic weapons require special license to own. Any manufactured after 1986 cannot be owned legally unless the owner is a manufacturer or importer of weapons as licensed by the ATF. No one is allowed to modify a weapon to fire full-auto unless they and the person they are modifiying it for are both holders of said special license.

[Col. Tartleton]

We already have less than reasonable gun laws. People breaking them are breaking the law...

"Oh my god, he shot people!"
"We have to do something!"
"We should try him for murder."
"I have a better idea!"
"What?"
"Gun law reform!"
"What?"
"It will stop him from breaking the law!"
"He already broke the law..."
"Right, so the existing laws aren't enough to stop crime."
"Do you even know what a law is?"
"I'm a lawyer turned Senator aren't I?"
"Do you even know what a law is?"
"No."

[Mithridate]

You made a picture for me, how cute.

Do you see yourself as an "enlightener"?

And where did I say that I lost hope? Most liberals mature from adolescence sooner or later

Edit: Heres some light even for you.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I always liked Jess even tho i find him somewhat delusional Cheers for contributing, some people may not have seen that one even tho i think its somewhere back in these pages He brings out most of the points pro-gun people make in a nice summary.

If you followed the thread, you would know the answer to the first question being pretty much a no.

You claimed theres no changing liberals, yet now say most "mature" with time... So i wont touch that further than my earlier quote with the lovely picture

[Gelgoog]

Is it not possible to register a customized AR-15 as a fully automatic weapon?

You can not say they were illegal. You don't have any source saying that, or do you?

There are a few hundred fully automatic M16s in civilian hands that were made before 1986 in the NFA registry. Civilians can not own one made after 1986 unless they are an FFL and it is considered a dealer-sample. The chances of that guy owning a $30,000 pre-86 M-16 is pretty slim. So unless we hear that he was a FFL, then it was either not a fully automatic rifle or it was illegally modified. The press tends to call fully automatic rifles "machine guns" (hell they call them that even when they are not).

The article is fully of derp anyways. "He fired at us with an AK47 but it might have been an M16." Describing to fully automatic weapons there because the person does not know the difference. then they were identified as an SKS (10 shot semi automatic) and a bushmaster (AR15 semi-automatic, bushmaster did not make any transferable FA weapons prior to the 86' ban)

[Vanoi]

Care to provide the relevant section?

http://www.ehow.com/how_4454981_buy-...ic-weapon.html

Many people believe it is illegal to buy an automatic weapon. However, while the National Firearms Act has made it more difficult to purchase these weapons, if you're willing to abide by the new regulations you can still buy an automatic weapon if it was lawfully registered before May 19, 1986.

If it was not registered before 1986, it is illegal.

Common Knowledge? Ohh, the irony... I take it you don't have any sources.

I provided a source above. And it is common knowledge here.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.

As you see again, the transfer of machine guns or possession of any made after 1986 is illegal.

Oh and before you say it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Machine guns include assault rifles.

You're not hiding your selective use of facts as well. You use lack of NFA license information as an indication of illegality of the weapons yet you ignore the fact that no where on any of the articles online they mention an illegal modification to the weapons. That's the second irony.

Or you just don't read other people's post. If you would have actually read mine, you would have seen this:

All we can say at this point was the guns were automatic.

Even though i tried to explain to you how one of his rifles couldn't have been a legal fully automatic since they do not sale fully automatic AR-15s, or the fact there is no evidence once so ever these were legal fully automatic assault rifles, I'll admit all we can say at this point is that the rifles he owned were automatic. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gelgoog]

Breaking news! Quick police reaction stops a possible shooter.

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/2059015...nder-lock-down

[Holger Danske]

Great news, yet that doesn't really solve the problem America has with shootings, it rather underlines their frequency...

[PointOfViewGun]

http://www.ehow.com/how_4454981_buy-...ic-weapon.html

If it was not registered before 1986, it is illegal.

It doesn't really back up what we're talking about, which is modified weapons, not manufacturing. I asked for the relevant section from the NFA.

I provided a source above. And it is common knowledge here.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

As you see again, the transfer of machine guns or possession of any made after 1986 is illegal.

Oh and before you say it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Machine guns include assault rifles.

Which none of it say anything about whether the guns owned by the shooter was legal or not.

Or you just don't read other people's post. If you would have actually read mine, you would have seen this:

Even though i tried to explain to you how one of his rifles couldn't have been a legal fully automatic since they do not sale fully automatic AR-15s, or the fact there is no evidence once so ever these were legal fully automatic assault rifles, I'll admit all we can say at this point is that the rifles he owned were automatic. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which is something you added after you claimed that they were illegal and merely contradicted yourself.

The fact is you have no source to back up your claim that guns were illegal and there are ways that this gun could be legally modified. One is if it was modified before 1986. You also haven't shed any light on legality of modification of such weapons.

No, just going to watch you make a fool of yourself further. Its rather funny.

A.k.a. you're gonna try to find other ways to piggyback and dance around admitting your failed points...

[Ciabhán]

Which is something you added after you claimed that they were illegal and merely contradicted yourself.

The fact is you have no source to back up your claim that guns were illegal and there are ways that this gun could be legally modified. One is if it was modified before 1986. You also haven't shed any light on legality of modification of such weapons.

Read the bloody PDF I linked to. It fully explains that THE PARTS USED TO MODIFY A WEAPON TO FIRE FULL AUTO ARE ILLEGAL UNLESS THE PERSON WHO HAS THEM HAS A SPECIAL LICENSE. They don't even have to be in a rifle. The PARTS ALONE are legally considered to be a machine gun.

They cannot be owned, used, sold by, sold to, or in any other way possessed legally by anyone who does not have said license. This particular rule has no cut off date.

The date 1986 is the last year that the National Machine Gun Registry was open. That means that nothing considered a machine gun can be legally registered to any civilian if it was manufactured or MODIFIED after 1986. Only specially licensed people(companies actually) who import or manufacture weapons are allowed to own any weapons on the controlled list that do not predate the closing of the registry. For weapons that do predate the 1986 closing of the registry you have to have a special license(actually a tax stamp) for EACH weapon.

On top of needing to have the license and because of the very limited availability of those weapons they are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars each.

[PointOfViewGun]

Read the bloody PDF I linked to. It fully explains that THE PARTS USED TO MODIFY A WEAPON TO FIRE FULL AUTO ARE ILLEGAL UNLESS THE PERSON WHO HAS THEM HAS A SPECIAL LICENSE. They don't even have to be in a rifle. The PARTS ALONE are legally considered to be a machine gun.

They cannot be owned, used, sold by, sold to, or in any other way possessed legally by anyone who does not have said license. This particular rule has no cut off date.

The date 1986 is the last year that the National Machine Gun Registry was open. That means that nothing considered a machine gun can be legally registered to any civilian if it was manufactured or MODIFIED after 1986. Only specially licensed people(companies actually) who import or manufacture weapons are allowed to own any weapons on the controlled list that do not predate the closing of the registry. For weapons that do predate the 1986 closing of the registry you have to have a special license(actually a tax stamp) for EACH weapon.

On top of needing to have the license and because of the very limited availability of those weapons they are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars each.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is illegal if you do it without a license. It is legal if you do it with a license. A simple concept...

[Ciabhán]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is illegal if you do it without a license. It is legal if you do it with a license. A simple concept...

Yes we are aware of that. If the weapons were legally purchased or modified the BATFE would know and it would be reported. Unless it is reported then the assumption must be that the weapons are either NOT full auto or ILLEGALLY purchased or modified.

Sadly I'm forced to use caps to make sure we know that you've been pointed towards the most relevant parts in a post. You have an amazing ability to completely skip over anything that contradicts your viewpoint. Whether this is intentional or not I've yet to fully determine.

[Gelgoog]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is illegal if you do it without a license. It is legal if you do it with a license. A simple concept...

Getting a SOT/Class III dealers license is incredible difficult to do. It is way more restrictive then even registering a NFA item.

Sadly I'm forced to use caps to make sure we know that you've been pointed towards the most relevant parts in a post. You have an amazing ability to completely skip over anything that contradicts your viewpoint. Whether this is intentional or not I've yet to fully determine.

Selective reading comprehension. When the other side has a well researched argument and you do not, just ignore their research. It has been successful tactic so far from him in the past 167 pages.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes we are aware of that. If the weapons were legally purchased or modified the BATFE would know and it would be reported. Unless it is reported then the assumption must be that the weapons are either NOT full auto or ILLEGALLY purchased or modified.

Sadly I'm forced to use caps to make sure we know that you've been pointed towards the most relevant parts in a post. You have an amazing ability to completely skip over anything that contradicts your viewpoint. Whether this is intentional or not I've yet to fully determine.

Thanks for the irony. It's always fun to see people accuse me of things they're responsible of themselves. Just like Vanoi, you're selectively applying facts. You just made up this idea that because the legality of the guns are not reported it must be assumed that they are illegal. Attack me all you want but please use arguments that make a little more sense.