Is the background check any different for NFA items now?
Nope.
Is the background check any different for NFA items now?
States are banning high capacity magazines and enforcing registration of certain semi auto rifles and pistols and ya'll think this has even the slightest chance of happening? Gonna take allot more than 50K. Good luck with that........I'll keep my money and go get some tacos.
States are banning high capacity magazines and enforcing registration of certain semi auto rifles and pistols and ya'll think this has even the slightest chance of happening? Gonna take allot more than 50K. Good luck with that........I'll keep my money and go get some tacos.
This is not a legislative action which requires public approval.
Also nobody on this thread has suggested that this guy will win.
Why leave MG's alone?
Because I don't want my or other people's investments to lose value.
Contrary to popular belief, it's not all about me.
All you Internet activists say otherwise, but this move doesn't effect any of you like it would effect me.
JR1572
Oh, and what about the left anti-gun crowd? You think Bloomberg hates ARs now and invests a **** ton of $$$$? Let's make em FA and see who and what that brings. You will most likely push those on the fence to the anti side.
It's a good idea on the surface but the FA thing I think makes it a looser.
I'll start by saying, I don't own any FA toys; but I can't see the practicality of LEO having FA on duty. I support anyone having them though as a toy; I just can't see a situation that couldn't be served with simi-auto in a law enforcement (in America) situation.......Now military and WHEN isis starts here; that's another story. I sure would like to save $200 for each item and be able to afford more NFA items. Just my opinion.
Investments are always at risk of falling to unexpected circumstances in a free market society, especially when it comes to physical objects like FA guns. If you don't want that risk then don't invest. To advocate taking away the personal liberties of others to protect your own monetary investments is nothing more than petty crony capitalism.
What liberties are being taken away? You and anyone else can go buy a MG. Pay for the MG, fill out the form 4, send in your $200 and there you go.
Again, what liberates are being taken away?
Is this being done do drive the values down? Sure is beginning to look like it...
Funny how y'all don't see wishing y'all lose money. I may call you people derps and hurt some feelings, but I would never wish anyone lose money on things they work hard to get.
JR1572
So if all firearms had to be federally registered with the ATF and carry a heavy tax like NFA items are, you wouldn't see that as a violation of our constitutional liberties?
Because I don't want my or other people's investments to lose value.
Contrary to popular belief, it's not all about me.
All you Internet activists say otherwise, but this move doesn't effect any of you like it would effect me.
JR1572
I understand that concern and respect that you admit it's only about protecting investment, but I disagree with that thought process.
Investors make and lose money on investments everyday for various reasons. Sometimes changes in laws cause investments to go up or down, but that shouldn't determine if a law should be passed, not passed, or changed.
As an investor in a MGs you should watch this closely and if it looks like it's going to succeed, sell before the price bottoms out. Then buy at a lower cost after prices hit rock bottom. You'll either have extra cash or can buy more firearms.
While this wouldn't affect me the same as it would affect you, it would still affect me greatly. You would lose some value in the firearms you own, I would be able to own firearms that I can't own now. (I know I "CAN" own them now, except that I can't afford the cost.) (YOU and I are used generically here. YOU = current owners of MGs, I = those who want but can't afford them)
Investment loss < Restored constitutional right
JMHO
Again, what restored constitutional right? You have the right to buy them right now.
It's all about the money, on my end and y'all's end.
I admitted it. Now it's y'all's turn.
JR1572
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Not really about the money for me. It's about righting a wrong. A right that requires CLEO signature, NFA trust, or an LLC to acquire isn't a right, it's a privilege.Again, what restored constitutional right? You have the right to buy them right now.
It's all about the money, on my end and y'all's end.
I admitted it. Now it's y'all's turn.
JR1572
I'll admit it's all about money.
The anti-gunners would never be able to completely outlaw FA firearms, but by stopping the sell of new FA firearms to the public, they made them cost prohibitive and accomplished their goal. The average Joe "can't" buy a FA firearm today.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringed?s=t
Infringe -
verb (used with object), infringed, infringing.
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:
to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object), infringed, infringing.
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon):
By not allowing FA firearms manufactured after 1986 to be sold to the public, the government has limited the availability of FA firearms. Since there are not enough pre-86 FA firearms available, supply and demand drives up the price of these firearms making them unattainable to the average citizen. Thus infringing, encroaching, violating, and transgressing on the right of most citizens to keep and bear this specific type of firearm.
Overturning this law would restore back to us all, more of our "right to bear arms".
I am against ANY infringement on our 2nd Amendment Rights. I would think that most (hopefully all) here would feel the same.