Pure awesome - Help Overturn 18 USC 922(o) and NFA

[JadeRaven]

Restricting the sale of goods to minors is an overstep, but speed limits on a PUBLIC road are not. Most of the speed limits could, and should, be raised, but they do serve a purpose.

Of course you have to be justified in shooting someone else. Now, that justification depends on the culture that you live in. I have no problem with home invaders being shot, and I tend to side with the property owner on what force can be used with trespassers, or thieves.

It is not the government's duty to protect me from myself, but rather to protect me from others.

To be fair, "to serve and protect" applies even to protect you from yourself. Even beyond police, hospitals, your family and friends, etc. have some duty IMO to protect people from harm.

We're getting way off topic here

 

[JadeRaven]

There are plenty of laws that I feel should be on the books. You take away all gun laws and you will have a 16 year old felon gang member walking up to the counter at Walmart being able to buy a suppressed Uzi. Extreme example, yep. Possible, for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Realistically a 45 year old non-felon homicidal maniac can walk up to a gun counter, or buy a gallon of gasoline and some matches, or buy a truck, etc.

I have a hard time thinking that the same kid you mention would have the wherewithal to purchase a new suppressed uzi. If he did, he probably would not be a felon gang member.

I do see your point though, but IMO if the 16 year old felon can't be trusted with a gun then he should still be in prison and not be able to go to wal mart.

 

[ta2d_cop]

Underage smoking/drinking, or driving over the speed limit are a little different than killing somebody. Let's be reasonable here

Also none of those have anything to do with topic at hand

Who gets to decide what is reasonable again? So now you are the measure of reason? Reasonability is a relative term, and we are being reasonable. He said laws that infringe on personal freedom were bad, to paraphrase. I know you guys don't like logic but our reasonable and yalls reasonable are obviously 2 different standards.

At this point I will tap out. Again, once the NFA repeal thing blows up in your hands I will point and laugh and remind y'all how y'all villafied us on here who told you so. The environment is just right to take a small step in the wrong direction and ruin it all, but hey, what do I know.. I'm just a jackbooted, anti-2nd stupid cop who got picked on as a kid and is too stupid to do anything else, right?

 

[kenny]

Who gets to decide what is reasonable again? So now you are the measure of reason? Reasonability is a relative term, and we are being reasonable. He said laws that infringe on personal freedom were bad, to paraphrase. I know you guys don't like logic but our reasonable and yalls reasonable are obviously 2 different standards.

At this point I will tap out. Again, once the NFA repeal thing blows up in your hands I will point and laugh and remind y'all how y'all villafied us on here who told you so. The environment is just right to take a small step in the wrong direction and ruin it all, but hey, what do I know.. I'm just a jackbooted, anti-2nd stupid cop who got picked on as a kid and is too stupid to do anything else, right?

Well, the first step is admitting you have a problem. At least you're not in denial about it.

 

[senseiturtle]

I think the best part about this is that the NFATCA has NOTHING to do with it (as far as we know). No love there.

To take a page out of "rules for radicals" - I'd settle for any "compromise" in the direction of "progress." If this lawsuits results in any positive gain for our cause, I'll take it.

While I'd like to see the ultimate repeal of the article, I remain cautiously optimistic, as the Feds will fight this tooth and nail. It'll be difficult to get any politician support, mainly due to the optics of the issue. If conservatives eventually back it, then they'll get lambasted with democrat ads with subject lines of "enabling dangerous people to get machineguns." (Facts be dammed).

 

[alpinehyperlite]

My biggest issue with this guy the OP described (and my last post in this thread), This guy is going to take the money for himself. He words it "my fees/expenses". All he would have to do is say OK, I raised $50k. My going rate for today will be $25k an hour. Puts in 2hrs of "work" and calls it case closed.

He says he is filing based on lawsuit for several individuals, then he should be collecting monies from those people, not random people on the internet to stuff his pockets with.

 

[Dock Rocker]

I know Stephen personally and you are just flat wrong. The money is held in trust and removed as hours are billed. There are rules on what he can bill Fo and what e can't. Stephen has to pay the bills and this is going to eat up quite a bit of time he would otherwise be spending on other cases. This is a once In a lifetime opportunity we need to take advantage of it.

 

[Peacemaker]

L

Who gets to decide what is reasonable again? So now you are the measure of reason? Reasonability is a relative term, and we are being reasonable. He said laws that infringe on personal freedom were bad, to paraphrase. I know you guys don't like logic but our reasonable and yalls reasonable are obviously 2 different standards.

At this point I will tap out. Again, once the NFA repeal thing blows up in your hands I will point and laugh and remind y'all how y'all villafied us on here who told you so. The environment is just right to take a small step in the wrong direction and ruin it all, but hey, what do I know.. I'm just a jackbooted, anti-2nd stupid cop who got picked on as a kid and is too stupid to do anything else, right?

If you say so!

 

[JadeRaven]

L

If you say so!

 

[JadeRaven]

I know Stephen personally and you are just flat wrong. The money is held in trust and removed as hours are billed. There are rules on what he can bill Fo and what e can't. Stephen has to pay the bills and this is going to eat up quite a bit of time he would otherwise be spending on other cases. This is a once In a lifetime opportunity we need to take advantage of it.

+1 I do not know him personally, but just the hours to draft those documents would already have been substantial. It's readily apparent that there will be many many hours dedicated to this project, and legal work ain't free (good work, anyway).

 

[GunRelated]

Well, the first step is admitting you have a problem. At least you're not in denial about it.

You just blew my mind..... Was anyone else already thinking this?

 

[GunRelated]

There is no (or shouldn't be) an argument here. Disappointing to say the least, that there are people like the few here against this for personal reasons. Damn shame.

 

[JadeRaven]

There is no (or shouldn't be) an argument here. Disappointing to say the least, that there are people like the few here against this for personal reasons. Damn shame.

+1

 

[Vsotok10]

Again, anyone who can legally purchase a firearm can purchase a machine gun.

How many times I have to repeat this?

I'm going to bed. I hope I have more nasty messages when I return in the morning.

Good night.

JR1572

But not ANY machine gun - which is how you prefer it so as to falsely prop up your investments. What other restrictions should be passed on the goods Americans can buy so as to protect the investment of others? Ohh, I know - lets ban the sale of mobile phones so as to protect the phone company's investment in land lines. Anybody can buy a phone so long as the phone was manufactured before 1986 - not withstanding a $200 tax and 6-12 month wait.

 

[JR1572]

But not ANY machine gun - which is how you prefer it so as to falsely prop up your investments. What other restrictions should be passed on the goods Americans can buy so as to protect the investment of others? Ohh, I know - lets ban the sale of mobile phones so as to protect the phone company's investment in land lines. Anybody can buy a phone so long as the phone was manufactured before 1986 - not withstanding a $200 tax and 6-12 month wait.

Ok.

I'm glad you used the cell phone example. Right now the government gives out free cell phones to people who cannot afford to purchase them. How about starting a program to give out free machine guns to everyone?

JR1572

 

[03protege]

Ok.

I'm glad you used the cell phone example. Right now the government gives out free cell phones to people who cannot afford to purchase them. How about starting a program to give out free machine guns to everyone?

JR1572

It seems to be working for the Swiss.

 

[US Infidel]

Ok.

I'm glad you used the cell phone example. Right now the government gives out free cell phones to people who cannot afford to purchase them. How about starting a program to give out free machine guns to everyone?

JR1572

Sweet!! Where do I get in line. Do I have to bring my welfare free money card to show I qualify for a free machine gun?

 

[JR1572]

It seems to be working for the Swiss.

I'm sure that has something to do with their population being well educated and mandatory military service. Those two things will never happen here.

JR1572

 

[JadeRaven]

Ok.

I'm glad you used the cell phone example. Right now the government gives out free cell phones to people who cannot afford to purchase them. How about starting a program to give out free machine guns to everyone?

JR1572

Are you being facetious or are you purporting this to be a legitimate argument?

 

[323MAR]

Quoted for ignorance.

You think there should be NO laws on guns at all?

I am not ignorant about the way things were before the 1968 GCA was passed. The ability of adults to purchase firearms over the counter or through the mail was not a problem.
My father purchased a Walther PPK during the 60's after retiring from the Marine Corps. There was no BC or Federal paperwork. He took me to the range and taught me how to shoot it at 8 years old. There was no problem at all.
I said nothing about children being allowed to buy guns. You simply tried to put words in my mouth.