No fully auto weapons made after 1986 can be registered. A class three firearms dealer can own a fully auto. You can buy a pre-1986 fully auto but you have to go through an ATF registering process.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
No fully auto weapons made after 1986 can be registered. A class three firearms dealer can own a fully auto. You can buy a pre-1986 fully auto but you have to go through an ATF registering process.
He's clearly on the wind up. I posted some facts to disprove his claims and he completely ignored them. Since then others have posted some rational arguments against his seatbelt and home invasion claims and he completely ignores those posts only to reply to those that insult him or ones he can reply back to with his moronic nonsensical arguments.
He's definitely on the WUM and if not then he's clearly too stupid and ignorant to have sensible discussion with because he's purposely choosing to ignore fact, reason and sense, instead just choosing to argue back and provoke or insult. Have fun y'all.
He's definitely on the WUM and if not then he's clearly too stupid and ignorant to have sensible discussion with because he's purposely choosing to ignore fact, reason and sense, instead just choosing to argue back and provoke or insult. Have fun y'all.
Its not that easy, and it can be expensive. Firstly pre-1986 are limited and expensive. There are a lot of fees involved. Then once you own one you would need a lot of land because ranges don't typically allow two shot rapid fire let alone fully auto.
Hell yes. I know people with fully auto weapons. They generally fall into three groups: Firearms dealers, people that owned them prior to 1986 and fairly well off people. I fully auto gun owners are a very small group of gun enthusiasts and are not really a major issue in the gun debate.
Still it is concerning that an individual can legally obtain heavier fully automatic firearms, such as machine guns for example. Regarding the "very small group" , it takes only one of them wreck havoc. If I am not mistaken, the Las Vegas shooter was not exactly a negative cash flow person, right?
Actually I think he used bump stocks, not fully-automatic. But the end result is almost the same, I believe.
I never said "prevent the holocaust" but it could've helped in the resistance until the rest of the world reacted and responded. I'll attack your one-sided moronic intelligence as well. Stay in that padded bubble of yours and deny everyone else's intelligence based on absolutely nothing. Oh, and don't let your schooling get in the way of an education, jackass!
What resistance. The Reichsbanner? Which actually had access to arms? Didn’t reall help them. Do you anything about Nazi Germany apart from „there was a guy called Hitler“? You know people voted for him right? Sorry, we need to cover the basics here, I have been confronted with high school history education before
I tell you what this guy sticks to his guns no matter how irrational the argument as well as that mjs character that posted a few years ago. 
The not getting conquered bit has a lot to do with the topography. It is very difficult to gain control over an entire country where there are extreme mountains and valleys, caves, and conflicting ethnic groups that are to varying degrees both tolerating and subverting foreign forces. This of course has nothing to do with first world problems of open carrying an AR-15 while you pick up a gallon of milk at Kroegers.
Not to mention they weren’t randomly in possession of heavy weaponry, but they were given to them by a certain someone. And both times they absolutely were conquered.
Last edited:
Clearly our reality of the world differs wildly from yours.
I guess he is unaware that the Afghans were not possession of the weapons they needed to defeat the Soviets by chance. They were armed purposely to fight the Soviets. When they were just fighting with their own personal guns they were getting slaughtered.
With the US it was a combo of arms left over from fighting the Soviets and armsv they got from their neighbors and others.
Any modern rebellion/insurgency is going to need some outside source to arm them. Even the NVA and Viet Cong needed outside support.
If you can't do your grocery shopping without the need to carry a gun perhaps you should buy a farm and just grow your own food.
Of course, he lives in a perpetual call of duty game. Tbh I reckon he might just be very, very stoned and have forgotten to take his VR headset off since Christmas.
I can't wait until they make phaser guns. If you get hit by a pulse, you instantly fall into a deep sleep lasting for only 5 minutes. Whoever makes one shaped like an AK-47 is getting my money.
Stricter gun control is all fun and games until the king of England decides to invade and you're left a mere spectator, weaponless and powerless. What then?
Lots of rabbit fecking though.
I was trying to avoid getting involved in this discussion just because I’m torn. You and I share a lot of the same views but it’s kind of hypocritical for me because I would be a lot stricter on gun control and I own a lot of guns. Going by a few things you’ve said, we might have actually met before and I live a long way away from you. I’ve made a few dollars with my rifles and have been given a considerable amount of other things because of them. I spend a lot of time at ranges and shoot three or four times a week, usually 1000s of rounds a week. I’d happily give them all up and find a new hobby if they were banned, and I know most people I’m involved with feel the same.
May I ask where you live?
So do you feel the need to carry or have a gun in the house for security?
I did my CWP years ago with friends, even bought a Kahr PM40 which is small enough to conceal in swim shorts. I don't think I have ever actually carried it anywhere. I just don't see guns has a means of defending myself.
Wyoming
I have a CWP but it’s just because it makes traveling with guns a lot easier. I have never carried in a town, just when I’m hiking or fishing. If someone broke into our house and I felt the need to defend my wife and I with a gun, I’d have to excuse myself and go to the basement to get a gun and get it loaded. We have two sweetheart dogs but they’re very loud, and I feel safe enough with them to deter anybody breaking in. I sleep in motels two or three days a week so my wife is home alone and we both still feel safe enough to leave the guns locked up. I don’t know if I could ever actually shoot a person, but I know I couldn’t over material stuff. If someone broke in, we’d probab hide and hope they get what they’re there for and leave.
Most of the time, having a gun for defense just means more people are going to get shot, IMO. In any kind of gun defense class, they stress that the first and most important thing in a bad situation is to remove yourself from it. A person should only try to fight back with a gun as a very last resort when there’s no other way out.
Totally agree. Especially when you consider the majority of break-ins are done by teenagers. Shooting some misguided kid over a few hundred dollars worth of stuff desn't make sense.
Breaking into someone's house doesn't really make sense...
Exactly. It's a last resort.
Watching some YouTube over the last few days and some ads for some special holster keep showing up. They actually talk about needing a gun because of "bullies". Yeah fecking bullies. Not murderers, rapists, mass murdering gun nuts,etc. nope you need this easy access holster because of "bullies"
Fecking hell, their customers are adults for goodness sake. They really need to carry a gun in case they get "bullied".
Fecking hell, their customers are adults for goodness sake. They really need to carry a gun in case they get "bullied".
I'm getting ads on this site. Find your holster, get your carry license online etc.
No doubt but would you like to be judge and jury if someone broke into your house?
Could you kill someone for robbing your house?
Judge and jury? No.
self defense should only be used as ...well as self defense when no other option is available. Non-lethal being the preference. Don't think it would at all be enjoyable.
Just seeing some one leaving my house with a few of my belongings? No not something to kill over
Last edited:
That question goes back to something I pointed out earlier...
You don't know why they're in your house uninvited, and you don't have the luxury of asking them.
Sturdier bedroom door and camera, an alarm. Common robbers would bolt the moment they hear alarm ringing.
After all that, a gun then can be justified. Suffice to say if someone breaks into your house, doesn't leave when alarm goes off and goes to work on your fortified bedroom door, he means business.
I’ve got the alarm system and 3 dogs.
Yes indeed, if they’re still in the house, they’re not there for the TV.
Well put.
Although it then begs the question, what on earth have you done to have someone hell bent on taking you out at the risk to their own freedom and/or life?
That's why in most cases, guns are not needed. They just provide the illusion of being in control, because, despite all the training, you can never be sure what will happen when you have someone staring down the barrel of your gun, or vice versa.
Dude we’ve got meth heads. They just break in.
An 80 year old woman living about a quarter mile up the road from my parents was killed last year in the middle of the night... why? Because a meth head broke in and killed her when she woke up. Stabbed her something like 20 times.