Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

of course I have

 

lol, no you can't. Not even with a slide fire stock can you fire at the same rate as a full auto M16.

nope

greater recoil and muzzle rise.

bullet spray

no it isn't.

 

which is a true statement.

 

of course they are, and you know that.

I've repeatedly proven so.

NFA act regulates machine guns. That is not debatable.

no, your not liking the answer has no bearing on the fact it's been answered.

you know this is a false statement.

asked and answered, repeatedly.

which is also a false statement.

 

you can't achieve the same rate of fire with your semi auto, not even with a slide fire stock.

of course, because it can't be fired with the same rate of speed. The rate of speed and the inaccuracy are what poses the unique risk.

 

lol, you've been repeatedly shown to be wrong in this exchange.

 

Do you know what standing is?

 

Are you aware of how a case comes before the supreme court? How about how much it generally costs?

 

Is that what you think? Would this be in all the arguments you attributed to me that I didn't make and repeatedly told you same?

Would this be when you thought NFA was what covered the post 86 ban?

Would this be when you couldn't recognize the ruling from miller because you haven't read the case?

 

you have standing.

 

And how would that be?

 

of course. What are you waiting for? What is the NRA waiting for? Why have none of you taken this to court?

 

No, as none of that happened. The poster quoted 15 words from the ruling. The opinion is very much larger than 15 words, and I don't have it memorized. I asked where that quote was from, and was given the answer.

 

Are you able to own a machine gun made after 1986? Are you able to manufacture your own?

Since the answer is no, you have standing.

 

So you don't understand how standing works then.
I'd have to suffer some damage IE get arrested in this case to bring a proper case. I'm not willing to put my life and my fiance's life on hold, potentially lose the ability to get my law license when my BAR scores come in, or not be there to work the job I need to work to pay my student loans (75k at this point after interest) or my medical debt (18k). Same reason I haven't been the test case for weed.

 

Oh? So how much does it cost generally to get to SCOTUS and where am I going to dig that money up? The NRA are a bunch of soft *******

 

Okie doke smokey Whatever you've got to tell yourself to preserve your delicate ego. We all saw what happened

 

Which is of no relevance. There is no legal distinguishment between machine guns, based solely on firing rate.

Define "accuracy" in the context of the statement. What range is being evaluated, what size of target is being used to test the statement?

The following video discounts the statement being presented by yourself.



One hundred rounds of ammunition discharged in a span of less than eight seconds. And all the while, the individual is showing absolutely no difficulty in holding the firearm steady.

This video demonstrates that an M16 machine gun is no faster, or anymore difficult to control, than an AR-15 equipped with a slide fire stock.

Discredited.

Which ultimately means nothing. The only time bullet spray would even be a factor, would be if someone were to open fire into a crowd of people, which is a crime. Your entire argument is based not on machine guns and their method of functionality themselves, but rather someone making the conscious and deliberate decision to use one in a criminal manner. If such were done, it is entirely irrelevant what firearm is used, as someone is still firing into a crowd with the intention to kill. The implement used is meaningless.

Your claim has been rejected on the basis of simple logic. Nothing has been presented by yourself to reinforce your argumentative narrative, and your word carries no value. Come back with actual evidence, or recant your claims.

Your words carry no weight. Your assertion is not evidence. Nothing has been proven, except for the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.

The only reason it is not debatable, is because you are factually incorrect.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_new_machine_guns

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, which modified the act to ban the civilian ownership of new machine guns, specifically to amend 18 U.S.C. § 922 to add subsection (o):


(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.


(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—


(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or


(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The firearm owners protection act. Not the national firearms act. The two are entirely different from one another.

The answer given is factually incorrect, and thus devoid of legitimacy. It is no more an answer than claiming that two and two equals five.

The only false statements are the ones being made by yourself.

The only answer that has been given, is the fact that there is no actual knowledge on the subject on the part of yourself.

And yet you cannot prove such to be accurate. Merely claiming that an answer has been provided, does not amount to proof of an answer.

A statement that has already been proven as being false through documented evidence to the contrary.

Such only applies if someone knowingly and deliberately opens fire into a crowd of people. In which case, risk exists regardless of what implement is being used.

Can anyone legally possess child pornography? If not, do they have standing to challenge the prohibition on such?

 

So you aren't confident in your interpretation.

 

I thought you were a lawyer? Try the case yourself.

 

Yes, everyone saw that I haven't memorized every word of a Supreme Court ruling.

 

Of course it's relevant.

dont be obtuse. You know perfectly well what I mean .

No it doesn't.

no it doesn't. Rate of fire of a full auto m16 is faster.

.

Lol, no.

Lol

Nope. You reject it baselessly.

Lol, I'm not the one who thinks semi auto AR's fire as fast as full auto M16's.

NFA regulates all class 3 weapons, which includes machine guns.

Nope. You just don't like the answer. Everything I've stated is factually correct.

.

Demonstrated otherwise.

Lol, YouTube is not documented evidence. It's a video. Full auto M16's by design, fire faster than semi auto AR's.

But a MUCH greater risk with full auto.

Of course. They would lose, but they can still go to court if they choose.

 

Is that what you think happened? Bless your little heart.

 

No, that's what clearly happened.

 

I am a lawyer and most of us who are experts on Gun cases believe the NFA violates Miller and the Heller rulings as well as the obvious language of the 2nd, 10th and now the 9th amendment, Your arguments are dishonest and TOG was correct about your status. You are engaging in nothing more than contrarian passive-aggressive attacks on pro rights posters, most likely because you don't like the voting patterns of the NRA or its members. You refuse to try to argue why the Hughes Amendment should have been passed but merely pretend its proper because it hasn't been stricken down yet