[POLOPOZOZO]

Also it's not like street sweepers should be legal.

[LF9000]

bravehat posted:

Oh god, does this mean that people can basically get any weapon they want now? Or am I being a pillock as usual.

Yeah man just ordered my tactical nuke.

[GunFox]

Nyaos posted:

I can't think of any reason to allow machine guns.

Yeah even I don't know if MG's are really necessary. I'd like the removal on barrel length of rifles removed, but a full on MG is a bit much.

What I do know however is that the bill was illegally pushed through, and THAT bugs me. It should be challenged, removed from the books, and the process restarted if they want to ban machineguns. This time legally.

[Emperor Scorpious II]

Doriol posted:

You're right, I forgot it was still the 18th century.

What difference would there be between a militia then to now?

People are people. They don't change, just the technology.

[POLOPOZOZO]

Emperor Scorpious II posted:

What difference would there be between a militia then to now?

People are people. They don't change, just the technology.

Now they are just evangelical racists who hate the government.

[Doriol]

Emperor Scorpious II posted:

What difference would there be between a militia then to now?

Are we really going to talk about this? The differences are pretty fucking obvious.

[Emperor Scorpious II]

POLOPOZOZO posted:

Now they are just evangelical racists who hate the government.

Source

Edited:

Doriol posted:

Are we really going to talk about this? The differences are pretty fucking obvious.

Do tell

[the_KMM]

GunFox posted:

Whoaaaaa, so apparently because the second amendment is a fundamental right, there is now grounds to challenge the 1986 machinegun ban.

The hughes amendments to the 1986 act was actually turned down, but added to the bill anyways. Which was really shady and fucked up at the time. But now it constitutes a violation of fifth amendment rights.

So there is now legal grounds to challenge the 1986 ban.

FINALLY.

If it gets overturned, I will personally go out and buy myself a Tec-9

...wait. I live in Maryland. Tec-9's are banned by state la-

OH WAIT THE SUPREME COURT RULING MEANS THAT STATE AND LOCAL LAWS CAN'T BE TOUGHER THAN FEDERAL LAWS AHAHAHAHAHAHA

[GunFox]

POLOPOZOZO posted:

Also it's not like street sweepers should be legal.

Meh, it's less effective than a saiga shotgun. No real reason they should actually be illegal.

Not that I think anyone really needs one. They are pieces of shit.

But if there is no valid legal reason why people SHOULDN'T have one, then they should be available.

[POLOPOZOZO]

Emperor Scorpious II posted:

Source

Edited:



Do tell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

now cut that out it's annoying as fuck.

[GunFox]

the_KMM posted:

FINALLY.

If it gets overturned, I will personally go out and buy myself a Tec-9

...wait. I live in Maryland. Tec-9's are banned by state la-

OH WAIT THE SUPREME COURT RULING MEANS THAT STATE AND LOCAL LAWS CAN'T BE TOUGHER THAN FEDERAL LAWS AHAHAHAHAHAHA

...you gain access to the wide world of automatic firearms and your first stop is a tec-9?

[the_KMM]

Doriol posted:

You're right, I forgot it was still the 18th century.

I guess the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan poses no threat to a military like ours then

oh wait

[Perfumly]

Rofl Tec-9's.

[POLOPOZOZO]

GunFox posted:

Meh, it's less effective than a saiga shotgun. No real reason they should actually be illegal.

Not that I think anyone really needs one. They are pieces of shit.

But if there is no valid legal reason why people SHOULDN'T have one, then they should be available.

Well because they're only good for one purpose as far as I can tell, which is opening fire into crowds of people at close range.

[the_KMM]

GunFox posted:

...you gain access to the wide world of automatic firearms and your first stop is a tec-9?

Yes. I've wanted one for a long time.

Also it would be a nice slap to the face to all the lawmakers who banned it by name

[Perfumly]

the_KMM posted:

I guess the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan poses no threat to a military like ours then

Not really on a larger scale

[Emperor Scorpious II]

POLOPOZOZO posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree

now cut that out it's annoying as fuck.

A handful of people counts as every gun owning man in America?

Show me something that involves at least 51% of the populace.

[Perfumly]

We need to keep street sweepers illegal.

[Loen]

You anti-gunners are just hatin' 'cos we be stylin' on ya. :frogc00l:

[POLOPOZOZO]

Emperor Scorpious II posted:

A handful of people counts as every gun owning man in America?

Show me something that involves at least 51% of the populace.

No they are an accurate depiction of the modern American militia, I'm not talking about individual gun owners.

[the_KMM]

Perfumly posted:

Not really on a larger scale

Imagine 1% of all the gun owners in the US deciding that the government is tyrannical and needs to be changed by any means necessary

That's easily larger than most country's standing armies.

And considering that US gun owners alone purchased more guns in 2009 than 21 of the world's militaries...

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/g...-guns-in-2009/

Oh I'm sorry that's the world's 21 largest militaries

[Doriol]

the_KMM posted:

I guess the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan poses no threat to a military like ours then

oh wait

What's your point? People in Iraq and Afghanistan fight back when our country's military decide it's okay to station themselves in their country, so every American should have machine guns?

[Perfumly]

the_KMM posted:

Imagine 1% of all the gun owners in the US deciding that the government is tyrannical and needs to be changed by any means necessary

That's easily larger than most country's standing armies.

And considering that US gun owners alone purchased more guns in 2009 than 21 of the world's militaries...

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/g...-guns-in-2009/

Yeah those militias would end up wrecking the US as a whole, not just the government.

Too many people in the US are dependent on govt. institutions.

[the_KMM]

Doriol posted:

What's your point? People in Iraq and Afghanistan fight back when our country's military decide it's okay to station themselves in their country, so every American should have machine guns?

I'm saying that militias should not be so underestimated

[Doriol]

the_KMM posted:

I'm saying that militias should not be so underestimated

Uh, okay.

[Emperor Scorpious II]

POLOPOZOZO posted:

No they are an accurate depiction of the modern American militia, I'm not talking about individual gun owners.

Oh bullshit. That's like saying the WBC is an accurate depiction of all Baptists.

[trent_roolz]

-snip-

[GunFox]

the_KMM posted:

Yes. I've wanted one for a long time.

Also it would be a nice slap to the face to all the lawmakers who banned it by name

Alright. I can respect that reasoning. :D

[Squad]

ProboardslolV2 posted:

Let him take my shit. I'm not going to hurt the guy. My insurance will cover it.

Insurance doesn't cover a bullet to your head. Well, for your family, but you are still screwed.

Not all break ins involve the guy coming in and just taking stuff. I know of several instances of where they came in, people were home, people were beaten, tortured or killed.

And don't take this to the extreme and think that I am saying every robbery is like this. But I have a firearm that I can access quickly in the event of a break in.

If someone breaks in, am I going to run in and start blasting the place? NO.

I will take it for protection and if the situation calls I will defend myself.

So I guess what I am saying is don't generalize people who use guns as protection as people who will actively go out and hunt people down.

[GunFox]

POLOPOZOZO posted:

Well because they're only good for one purpose as far as I can tell, which is opening fire into crowds of people at close range.

But that isn't actually a reason to ban them.

Killing PEOPLE is the reason we have the second amendment. Handguns are designed to shoot people almost exclusively. But that isn't a reason to ban them either.

[Emperor Scorpious II]

Here, POLOPOZOZO

The Militia Act of 1903

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you're X, where as X is 17 < X < 45, you're part of the United States Militia. Congrats!

[Mr_Sun]

I support this because I am just happy to see our rights returning to us, even if it is something fucking crazy like guns.

The gun laws still are in affect right? No people with criminal records can get guns still I hope...

[Emperor Scorpious II]

Mr_Sun posted:

I support this because I am just happy to see our rights returning to us, even if it is something fucking crazy like guns.

The gun laws still are in affect right? No people with criminal records can get guns still I hope...

If a criminal wants a gun, I'm sure he/she will do it through illegal means anyways, so I don't feel that law really has much use.

[GunFox]

Mr_Sun posted:

I support this because I am just happy to see our rights returning to us, even if it is something fucking crazy like guns.

The gun laws still are in affect right? No people with criminal records can get guns still I hope...

No the justices specifically reaffirmed the right of states to prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms.

[Emperor Scorpious II]

GunFox posted:

No the justices specifically reaffirmed the right of states to prevent convicted felons from obtaining firearms.

This is not just a victory for gun rights, but for state rights as well :patriot:

[MegaChalupa]

Wait, so does this mean that, as a Californian, that I can finally buy and AR-15 that doesn't look like this?

[JDK721]

:wtc:

[GunFox]

MegaChalupa posted:

Wait, so does this mean that, as a Californian, that I can finally buy and AR-15 that doesn't look like this?

It'll be a while. I imagine CA will fight tooth and nail.

I'm just waiting for there to be instances of ATF being deployed to defend gun rights inside California.

I might just shed a tear of joy.

[Broseph_]

ProboardslolV2 posted:

Has the US ever tried to oppress it's citizens to the point where an armed conflict occured?

Trust me, when you say that "Those guns are to fight their government!" it's actually going to be used to rape, loot, riot, and kill cops. Nobody is going to charge the capital building and shoot up some senators.

Kyrgyzstan Says hi



Oh yeah, did I forget to mention, only Members of Government Ministries were the only civilians allowed to have guns before all this happend

[POLOPOZOZO]

Emperor Scorpious II posted:

Here, POLOPOZOZO

The Militia Act of 1903



If you're X, where as X is 17 < X < 45, you're part of the United States Militia. Congrats!

I'm not able bodied I'm fat lol, also I make love not war. :smug: