Replies

Fully automatic machine guns were, of course, effectively banned in 1934

????? - More like heavily regulated - but anyone who has the time and money can buy them legally.

2 posted on 08/09/2004 7:33:12 AM PDT by 2banana (They want to die for Islam and we want to kill them)

????? - More like heavily regulated - but anyone who has the time and money can buy them legally.

They also need to live in the right jurisdiction.

3 posted on 08/09/2004 7:37:41 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)

Fully automatic machine guns were, of course, effectively banned in 1934

????? - More like heavily regulated - but anyone who has the time and money can buy them legally.

"Effectively banned" is more correct. There is only one such gun for every 1000 citizens, so "anyone" may get them as long as not too many "anyones" wish to. The $200 fee is minor, but the need for permission of your stubborn local police chief is an effective ban for many people, perhaps most of the population if you consider the number of citizens prohibited by state-wide bans.

Then, the price. A $10,000 price tag on something that costs $500 to manufacture is an "effective ban" for most citizens, because something that is made cost-prohibitive by government mandate is "effectively banned."

Worst of all, modern rifles have been FULLY banned. Now, and for the duration of our republic, citizens will never have access to rifles made or designed after 1986. Today, a 30-year-old rifle might not be very obsolete, but in future generations, it may make a substantial difference.

And to those who say "but my accurate scoped rifle is more useful against tyranny than a clumsy machine gun", I ask "why do you think that most soldiers carry machine guns, and not sniper rifles?"

5 posted on 08/09/2004 7:45:00 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)

What about the word 'effectively' in the statement that you attempt to controvert?

Like the word 'infringed' that is so widely ignored, even by the national reasonable-regulation ass types.

Banning guns will not and has not (where it is tried) prevented their use in crimes especially.

Regulating automatic weapons will not and has not prevented their use either.

Both efforts violate the words of the Constitution.

9 posted on 08/09/2004 7:58:05 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)

More like heavily regulated - but anyone who has the time and money can buy them legally.

Except that new ones were banned in 1986. Yes, there are some re-wats and such available. But you can't buy a newly produced M-16 from FN or Colt.

17 posted on 08/09/2004 9:13:29 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794