It's just so very sad

[Dogbreath2U]

You saying it doesn't make it so. The first sign of a profound lack of wisdom is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be "wrong". That is your ego talking and being scared is your mind fearing that it could be wrong.

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge.

Do you really believe that this is what prevents the government of the United States of America from becoming "abusive"? The elected officials are concerned about not being re-elected, not about being shot. The mother of the shooter was reported to be concerned about the collapse of society, possibly leading to her having the stockpile of guns and giving her son the means to bring about a catastrophe.

 

[Huskymaniac]

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong.

You saying it doesn't make it so. The first sign of a profound lack of wisdom is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be "wrong". That is your ego talking and being scared is your mind fearing that it could be wrong.

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge. Ever he

You should cut your screen name to just "Maniac", it's more fitting....or maybe "Coo Coo Bird"

Typical response from a fearful person who is a slave to their ego. Like the rest of the weak minded fools, you convince yourself I must be a crazy idiot because the alternative is that you are very wrongminded yourself and that would make you a.......

Such is the life of someone who has bought into dualistic reasoning.

 

[The Funster]

Setting aside the politics behind what happened, I'll just say that I still cannot wrap my head around what happened. The depravity of the shooter, the innocence of the children and the heroism of the educators whose actions saved many more lives leaves me with feelings of revulsion, sorrow and profound awe.

 

[8893]

Tyranny used by gun lobby and its insecure, paranoid supporters to justify private ownership of mass assault weapons = none.

Mass murders of innocent children by the hand of those assault weapons = many.

Mass murders of innocent children if those assault weapons were not readily available to private citizens, as in every other modern country = less.

It's a choice. Let's stop allowing a manufactured, imagined fear perpetrated by insecure fear mongerers be used to justify a choice that every other country faced with this issue has recognized leads to more senseless killing, not less.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Do you really believe that this is what prevents the government of the United States of America from becoming "abusive"? The elected officials are concerned about not being re-elected, not about being shot. The mother of the shooter was reported to be concerned about the collapse of society, possibly leading to her having the stockpile of guns and giving her son the means to bring about a catastrophe.

Ultimately, yes. This is what the founders had in mind. Their fear of death is stronger than their greed. But, you are right, both drive their actions. Consider what the president and congress could do if they wanted to. We could quickly lose what little democracy we have left. It is already bad enough that the vast majority of our highest government officials come from a select group of people dictated primarily by money and power. We have many checks and balances in place but it is not so impenetrable as to make it impossible for the government to gain absolute power and become corrupted absolutely. The ability of the people to rise up against the government in revolt is THE last line of defense.

Let me be clear, I don't own a gun or hunt nor am I a member of the NRA. I just see the second amendment differently than many people here and I still see its value, 250 years later.

 

[tzznandrew]

Humans have been killing each other since we have started crawling on this earth. The point is, what ever weapon is available will be used if someone really wants to reek havoc. If this same guy had used his moms car to mow down a bunch of kids standing in line waiting to get on the bus, would it have been less tragic? I do believe our society has has soul searching to do on how to curtail this kind of thing. Is it the way we treat the mentally challenged, is it the violent video games these kids play, is it the violent rap music that is listened to, is it the breakdown of the basic family unit, is it a gun owner not securing his or her weapons properly, or a combination of many things? I also feel that taking the easy way out by banning guns will do next to nothing to solve the long term problem. The folks who think banning guns will bring about a safe society are the same folks who think throwing money at the inner city failing schools will magically do something to improve the education of these youths, when the problem has nothing to do with the cost per child being educated. But thinking or otherwise is just not politically correct even for discussion. Just one persons opinion.

It would be no less tragic if he had mowed kids down with a car. But we don't really see that happen? Why? Why is the weapon used to kill a lot of people not a car, not a knife, not (in the US) a bomb? Why is it always an assault weapon?

Because someone doing it with a car would not have had much success. And someone doing it with a knife wouldn't have either. A bomb is a different scenario, I'll grant, but I think it has other issues.

I agree--there are lots of problems with our society, and working on only one will not fix all the problems. But that doesn't mean we sit on our hands and do nothing.

I don't think you would talk to someone who knows what their doing, or who has worked in an inner-city public school (my wife works in Boston Public Schools), who would say the only problem they have is funding. It's one of them, but many of the other issues (poverty, single-family households where the single parent cannot provide adequate support, 0-parent households where there is nothing there, etc. etc.) are really big problems. But when your textbooks are falling apart, or your science books are out of date, it doesn't help.

 

[tzznandrew]

Ultimately, yes. This is what the founders had in mind. Their fear of death is stronger than their greed. But, you are right, both drive their actions. Consider what the president and congress could do if they wanted to. We could quickly lose what little democracy we have left. It is already bad enough that the vast majority of our highest government officials come from a select group of people dictated primarily by money and power. We have many checks and balances in place but it is not so impenetrable as to make it impossible for the government to gain absolute power and become corrupted absolutely. The ability of the people to rise up against the government in revolt is THE last line of defense.

Let me be clear, I don't own a gun or hunt nor am I a member of the NRA. I just see the second amendment differently than many people here and I still see its value, 250 years later.

I don't want there to be no guns (some on this board said so, but I don't). I don't think your automatic weapons are stopping the government. Sorry. You can try to shoot down a droid, but even if you do, you didn't kill anyone.

Our government is not Syria. It would be a lot more difficult to bring into a state of civil war. And even if we did, I think at that point--the point of open rebellion--it would be a lot easier to get access to these guns, when they were actively needed. And people with hunting rifles and handguns could defend themselves.

I don't think that the government doesn't do things because they're afraid of the citizenry. I think that is borderline crazy.

 

[cohenzone]

Very late to most of this thread, and it's too long now for me to review all that's been said. Personally, I don't own a gun, don't want to own one, had a guard job in college where I had to carry a loaded revolver and never got attached to the sucker. Would it bother me if all the guns on earth disappeared. Not a bit. Do I think our Constitution is going to change any time soon, no. Do I think we have a lot to fear from our government the way the Founding Father's felt at the time that they were writing. No, but I never say never.

But, if one looks at the language of the 2nd amendment, it seems to me that some specific conclusions can be reached and some matters of definition arrived at. As to conclusions, the language seems much more directed to the right to bear arms in some organized fashion as a means to keep the government from taking advantage of the population. As such, it does not necessarily support using weapons to do anything but that. But okay, so it gets silly to think that an argument would succeed that disallows weapons from being used for the manly sport of animal hunting while the supermarket is down the block, or to have some sort of weapon around the house . So the conclusion is relatively easily reached that so long as the Amendment exists, the citizens must be allowed the right to have arms.

The language in the Amendment refers to "arms", not guns. So it is legitimate to look at what the Founders considered to be "arms" and argue that only the sort of "arms" that they knew are allowed. Muskets, cannons, bow and arrow, single shot pistols, a knife or a sword.

But that would be an absurd conclusion, right? So one should then look at the modern equivalent to give meaning to the word "arms". And to effectuate the meaning of the whole Amendment as assuring the right of citizens to combat a tyrannical government, the word "arms" logically means having at the citizens ready disposal, all "arms" necessary to counter the "arms" that the tyrannical government might have. "Arms" then, as properly interpreted under the Constitution does not guarantee us the mere right to own guns, but the right to own bombers, tanks, drones, bombs of every strength, etc etc. How else can we defend ourselves against the power of the tyrant? Otherwise, it want us to wage a doomed resistance. So, I'm out shopping for a tank to replace my Prius.

Of course, I've had too much wine to be thinking clearly, but I've wondered, for all of the enlightened who think we are allowed the right to own "arms" because we need to be able to keep the government in line, how do you feel about Kent State, for example. (Read up about May 1970 if you don't know what I'm referring to.) Those damned stupid students almost cost me the right to take my bar exam. What could they possibly have been doing? Oh yeah, exercising their right of assembly and speech. Would the folks who think that we can oppose a tyrannical government have agreed that any student who shot back and killed a Guardsmen had a perfect defense under the 2nd Amendment that they were doing what the Constitution permitted? Who decides when that right is being exercised properly or not? Um, I think it's that same tyrant.

If this country does not at long last give the finger to the NRA and impose sensible gun laws that do not deprive hunters of their joy, or the folks who need a loaded gun at the ready to deter the armed intruder (probably keeping the loaded weapon in a place the law frowns on as being too accessible) I fear we will never have the will.

 

[Huskymaniac]

I don't want there to be no guns (some on this board said so, but I don't). I don't think your automatic weapons are stopping the government. Sorry. You can try to shoot down a droid, but even if you do, you didn't kill anyone.

Our government is not Syria. It would be a lot more difficult to bring into a state of civil war. And even if we did, I think at that point--the point of open rebellion--it would be a lot easier to get access to these guns, when they were actively needed. And people with hunting rifles and handguns could defend themselves.

I don't think that the government doesn't do things because they're afraid of the citizenry. I think that is borderline crazy.

Reagan, two Kennedys and several other presidents and members of congress have been victims of attacks by simple hand guns. And those were unorganized nutjobs. Imagine what a motivated and organized militia could do. I'm not saying that fear of assasination drives the daily votes in congess or the actions of the president today. We are not currently close to a situation where they need to fear that. But if any of them had notions of trying to grab excessive power in the future, yes, it would cross their minds and maybe stop them.

 

[jleves]

Reagan, two Kennedys and several other presidents and members of congress have been victims of attacks by simple hand guns. And those were unorganized nutjobs. Imagine what a motivated and organized militia could do. I'm not saying that fear of assasination drives the daily votes in congess or the actions of the president today. We are not currently close to a situation where they need to fear that. But if any of them had notions of trying to grab excessive power in the future, yes, it would cross their minds and maybe stop them.

Assassinating a president and overthrowing a tyrannical government are pretty different things. Your argument sucks.

 

[Charlie Brown]

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong. You speak if monarchs and tyranny as if those are things that we interact with on an ongoing basis. We don't.

It's a wonderful position that you hold, and I'm sure it helps you sleep warmly at night.

Your position is - "we don't need the right to bear arms because there are no monarchs left."

That's equivalently naive to believing that you should throw out your rat traps because you killed the last rat in the barn.

 

[TerryA88]

There is no registry in regard to people diagnosed with any type of mental disorder. Such a registry would likely have the impact of making people even more reluctant to seek help. The privacy of medical records is a pretty big deal and such a registry would violate that privacy.​

You are correct. No such registry currently exists , but my point is there needs to be one. The majority of parents / grandparent/ foster parents realize when something 'isn't quite right' with a child. The overwhelming majority of these 'mass murder' shooters HAVE been diagnosed with a mental disorder.
Automobiles are tracked more thoroughly than handguns in America. Our educational system will test kids who under-perform, or seem to have behavioral or learning disabilities. This young man was in Newtown, CT one of the best High Schools in the state. Once he was diagnosed as having a mental disorder, if the database I'm saying needs to exist did, the parent should be given 30 days to either turn in firearms, or provide proof of sale, or a transfer of ownership to individuals/parties not at their address . Local ranges can store and keep them so we won't have issues with the NRA.
If proof isn't provided that firearms are no longer at the address... exorbitant per-firearm fines/ possible jail time.

 

[zls44]

It's a wonderful position that you hold, and I'm sure it helps you sleep warmly at night.

I'd sleep a lot better knowing it was in a country that had the decency and intelligence to ban assault weapons.

 

[zls44]

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article...red-in-gun-buy-back-4121621.php#ixzz2FBAlRltP

 

[Gurleyman]

What about the people, say, who think that a democratically-passed law designed to increase access to health care, that they disagree with (and are entitled to disagree with), constitutes some form of "tyranny" in their warped mind. Should they be allowed to form a militia and start assassinating people in DC?

I don't want crazy "the black hawks are coming for me next" people who have $100,000 worth of ammo (like the guy arrested today in Indiana threatening to set his wife on fire and shoot up a school) deciding when there's tyranny. They aren't bright enough to operate a toothbrush without supervision.

 

[metsfan2323]

Imagine what a motivated and organized militia could do. \

I spent a few minutes imagining what an "organized militia" with assault rifles can do. The only thing I could come up with is kill a lot of people before being killed themselves. That's about it.

And BTW a proper synonym for an "organized militia" in action that loses is "terrorist group". The Founding Fathers if they had lost would be known now as a terrorist group because the winners get to write the history.

Fidel Castro led an organized militia against what he thought was a tyrannical government in the 50's and they won, but I suspect you don't like the government he installed and I doubt any of us would like the government any organized militia in this country would install.

The only type of government overthrow that could possibly succeed in this country would be a right wing military coup. It's possible it already happened and we just don't know it, because again, its the winners who get to write the history.

 

[8893]

Very late to most of this thread, and it's too long now for me to review all that's been said. Personally, I don't own a gun, don't want to own one, had a guard job in college where I had to carry a loaded revolver and never got attached to the sucker. Would it bother me if all the guns on earth disappeared. Not a bit. Do I think our Constitution is going to change any time soon, no. Do I think we have a lot to fear from our government the way the Founding Father's felt at the time that they were writing. No, but I never say never.

But, if one looks at the language of the 2nd amendment, it seems to me that some specific conclusions can be reached and some matters of definition arrived at. As to conclusions, the language seems much more directed to the right to bear arms in some organized fashion as a means to keep the government from taking advantage of the population. As such, it does not necessarily support using weapons to do anything but that. But okay, so it gets silly to think that an argument would succeed that disallows weapons from being used for the manly sport of animal hunting while the supermarket is down the block, or to have some sort of weapon around the house . So the conclusion is relatively easily reached that so long as the Amendment exists, the citizens must be allowed the right to have arms.

The language in the Amendment refers to "arms", not guns. So it is legitimate to look at what the Founders considered to be "arms" and argue that only the sort of "arms" that they knew are allowed. Muskets, cannons, bow and arrow, single shot pistols, a knife or a sword.

But that would be an absurd conclusion, right? So one should then look at the modern equivalent to give meaning to the word "arms". And to effectuate the meaning of the whole Amendment as assuring the right of citizens to combat a tyrannical government, the word "arms" logically means having at the citizens ready disposal, all "arms" necessary to counter the "arms" that the tyrannical government might have. "Arms" then, as properly interpreted under the Constitution does not guarantee us the mere right to own guns, but the right to own bombers, tanks, drones, bombs of every strength, etc etc. How else can we defend ourselves against the power of the tyrant? Otherwise, it want us to wage a doomed resistance. So, I'm out shopping for a tank to replace my Prius.

Of course, I've had too much wine to be thinking clearly, but I've wondered, for all of the enlightened who think we are allowed the right to own "arms" because we need to be able to keep the government in line, how do you feel about Kent State, for example. (Read up about May 1970 if you don't know what I'm referring to.) Those damned stupid students almost cost me the right to take my bar exam. What could they possibly have been doing? Oh yeah, exercising their right of assembly and speech. Would the folks who think that we can oppose a tyrannical government have agreed that any student who shot back and killed a Guardsmen had a perfect defense under the 2nd Amendment that they were doing what the Constitution permitted? Who decides when that right is being exercised properly or not? Um, I think it's that same tyrant.

If this country does not at long last give the finger to the NRA and impose sensible gun laws that do not deprive hunters of their joy, or the folks who need a loaded gun at the ready to deter the armed intruder (probably keeping the loaded weapon in a place the law frowns on as being too accessible) I fear we will never have the will.

Thank you for this thoughtful, insightful, intelligent post. I've been one to give up on the hopes of better gun control because I think that you can't fight crazy, and the dialogue about this issue has been dominated by crazy talk for years. The more that we can have dialogue like this that diffuses the crazy talk, the more hopeful I am that something helpful might happen here after all.

 

[minidarren]

Can someone who is against assault rifles please give me their description of what one is? Their personal definition, without looking it up.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gurleyman]

Can someone who is against assault rifles please give me their description of what one is? Their personal definition, without looking it up.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

One that puts too many bullets in too many kids too quickly. How's that?

I'm against hot bats in baseball/softball too, but I can't tell you the exact model of Louisville Slugger that crosses the line or give you the math of inertia per inch of where the threshold is. Ball comes off bat too fast = bad.

 

[minidarren]

So you are against assault rifles due to the magazine size, but you have no issue with 16 round handgun magazines? Are handguns with hi-cap magazines assault rifles? Your definition makes no sense.

I had an argument with my girlfriends sister yesterday. She kept asking why people needed automatic assault rifles. I corrected her by saying that the rifle used was not automatic and was semi-automatic. The misconception is very apparent. Ill continue to say that the problem that needs to be addressed is the individuals how have these tendencies, not the weapons themselves. I do agree that if the guns didn't exist then the problem would go away. However, there will always be a black market for this type of thing and they will never be completely removed from our society.

 

[tzznandrew]

So you are against assault rifles due to the magazine size, but you have no issue with 16 round handgun magazines? Are handguns with hi-cap magazines assault rifles? Your definition makes no sense.

I had an argument with my girlfriends sister yesterday. She kept asking why people needed automatic assault rifles. I corrected her by saying that the rifle used was not automatic and was semi-automatic. The misconception is very apparent. Ill continue to say that the problem that needs to be addressed is the individuals how have these tendencies, not the weapons themselves. I do agree that if the guns didn't exist then the problem would go away. However, there will always be a black market for this type of thing and they will never be completely removed from our society.

Part of our issue is that our problems as a country are incredibly complicated. No one shoots up a school just because he has a gun.

But we could slow them down, and stop some from happening, with an assault weapon ban.

Listen--I'm not the most knowledgable person about guns. And one of my fears is that people who write the laws won't be as well. So why don't people who know a crapton say: these guns are particularly dangerous, these types of handguns probably should be classified as it as well--and we work to get these out of the hands of people who have no right having them.

There is a misconception by some. Some people think semi-automatic and automatic are the same. Part of the reason: civilians don't have automatic weapons, and so they don't know much about them.

Why is there no black market for automatics (or at least not a black-market strong enough that these killers use them)?

 

[UConnSwag11]

way to long to read what everyone has said... what happened is absolutely awful my prayers go out to the families and community. but having bans or gun control will not stop these things from happening, why? bc criminals dont follow laws, the laws control law abiding citizens and if someone wants to do something they will find a way regardless... we have the second amendment not only to protect us from criminals (alarms and cops come after the incident) but to protect us from the gov... anyways there are multiple ways of trying to stop these horrendous acts or limit their impacts... such as the media not having 24/7 news coverage(these people need and want attention regardless if they take their lives or not), having teachers be trained and be allowed to have a pistol on them(all mass shootings happen in gun free zones) and more research into mental illness research and educating people on how to operate a fire arm

 

[UConnSwag11]

Part of our issue is that our problems as a country are incredibly complicated. No one shoots up a school just because he has a gun.

But we could slow them down, and stop some from happening, with an assault weapon ban.

Listen--I'm not the most knowledgable person about guns. And one of my fears is that people who write the laws won't be as well. So why don't people who know a crapton say: these guns are particularly dangerous, these types of handguns probably should be classified as it as well--and we work to get these out of the hands of people who have no right having them.

There is a misconception by some. Some people think semi-automatic and automatic are the same. Part of the reason: civilians don't have automatic weapons, and so they don't know much about them.

Why is there no black market for automatics (or at least not a black-market strong enough that these killers use them)?

agree with the beginning of your post, but all the assault weapon ban will do is take it out of the hands of law abiding citizens and keep them in the hands of criminals, the criminals will find a way to get them... what if a psycho pulls something with a hunting rifle or handgun? do they ban those as well?

 

[minidarren]

Part of our issue is that our problems as a country are incredibly complicated. No one shoots up a school just because he has a gun.

But we could slow them down, and stop some from happening, with an assault weapon ban.

Listen--I'm not the most knowledgable person about guns. And one of my fears is that people who write the laws won't be as well. So why don't people who know a crapton say: these guns are particularly dangerous, these types of handguns probably should be classified as it as well--and we work to get these out of the hands of people who have no right having them.

There is a misconception by some. Some people think semi-automatic and automatic are the same. Part of the reason: civilians don't have automatic weapons, and so they don't know much about them.

Why is there no black market for automatics (or at least not a black-market strong enough that these killers use them)?

There are automatic weapons that are available. Additional federal checks and large sums of money annually make it possible to own these weapons. Please see below for reference. A well written response to whether or not automatic assault rifles are illegal or not.

Assault weapon are not a practical solution for close quarter defense. A shotgun with buckshot is much more suitable for home defense. Accuracy is not an issue as your field of ammo dispersion is greater for each trigger pull.

The point isn't to minimize the damage that can occur with a semi-automatic assault rifle. The point is to show that the specific gun used is not the issue. An assault weapon ban will not prevent these acts from occurring because there are other weapons that are available for use that can provide as much of the same amount of damage, if not more, than an assault weapon.

I have NO idea how to stop things like this from happening. I think that it starts with a better review of the mental stability of people coming out of high school. The great majority of these incidents are caused by white males who are in the late teens and early 20's. Why is this event so prevalent in this age group? I would be willing to place more blame on the video game industry. COD, Metal of Honor, and so on create a false pretense of being able to kill without feeling remorse or witnessing the suffering that comes with it. In addition, TV shows such as Criminal Minds certainly dont help the situation either. I am a big fan of Criminal Minds, but am often left thinking at the end of the shows "Who thinks this crap up? They are sick."

Contrary to popular belief, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are however HIGHLY regulated. Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).

In order to legally own one, you must first find one that you wish to buy. For it to be legal, it must have been made and registered with the BATFE prior to 19 May 1986. These are what are known as transferrable NFA or Class III items.

Your next step will be to negotiate a price with the buyer. Most buyers have their prices set pretty firm and the going rate for a M16 varies by condition and model (M16A1, A2, AR-15 conversion, etc). A brand new, unfired, factory Colt M16A2 is going to run you about $18,000+ while a used AR-15 conversion will run you about $9,500-$13,000+. You will just have to shop around and look for the best deal out there.

Once you find one and negotiate a price you will need to pay the seller. Depending on if you are buying the item from out of state or not, you may also need to find a local Class III FFL/SOT to handle the transfer. NFA/Class III items CANNOT be shipped or carried across state lines without the proper prior approved paperwork. If buying out of state, you would need to have it transferred to a local seller who would then transfer it to you. Once you have found a FFL/SOT if needed, you will need to pay the seller. Unlike with other firearms where you can often do installment payments for years or put it on a credit card, most NFA sellers want full funds up front although some are willing to work with you and do half now, half when the paperwork comes back. At best, you are looking at half up front before he will even start the paperwork.

Once the seller is satisfied with the payment plan and has his funds, he will begin the paperwork. This requires a little bit of work on your end. You will need to get a few things in order for the process to be complete. You will need to get two sets of fingerprint cards done, two passport photos, and fill out a Form 4 (to include the signature of the CLEO of the area you live in) and write a check to the Department of the Treasury for the $200 transfer tax. It is this special tax that will allow you to legally own the weapon. Once you have all this together along with the required paperwork from the seller, you will ship it all to the BATFE who will then have one of their 10 or so inspectors sit down and review it. Any little error will cause it to be rejected and sent back. This is where the frustration begins as the wait starts. It generally takes anywhere from 50-90 days for them to process an application. The main thing that they will be doing is running an extensive background check on you through the FBI criminal database using all your information as well as your fingerprints.

Once the paperwork finally comes back, the seller can then legally ship/transfer the weapon to you. You CANNOT take posession of it before this time or it will be the same as being in possession of an unregistered machine gun which carries a stiff penalty in federal prison.

And that is all there is to it. Once you receive the tax stamp, always makes sure you keep a COPY with the weapon at all times no matter where it goes. Also, remember to keep the original in a SAFE place where nothing will happen to it as the BATFE does not replace lost, stolen, or destroyed tax stamps.

The above advice assumes you are buying in state. If buying out of state, the process is the same, except that you will be required to do two to three transfers. One from the seller to a Class III FFL/SOT if he is not already one, then one from the FFL/SOT in his state to an FFL/SOT in your state, and then from your local FFL/SOT to you. There is no wait time or transfer tax between FFL/SOT's. This means that you will basically only be waiting on the time it takes for two transfers if buying out of state.

If you want to be able Tyler Phommachanh purchase new full auto weapons, you will need to apply for a FFL/SOT permit from the BATFE. Getting one isn't really all that difficult, except that you need to deal in NFA items and not just buy them. If you only buy and don't sell, then the BATFE can get you on tax evasion. You must also get requests from law enforcement agencies or military units before purchasing them even with an FFL/SOT. This is because FFL/SOT is not exactly a free license to purchase full auto weapons. It merely means that you are an authorized dealer to provide them to law enforcement agencies. However, there is nothing that says you cannot take them out for some fun when not demoing them for the police.

 

[jleves]

So you are against assault rifles due to the magazine size, but you have no issue with 16 round handgun magazines? Are handguns with hi-cap magazines assault rifles? Your definition makes no sense.

I had an argument with my girlfriends sister yesterday. She kept asking why people needed automatic assault rifles. I corrected her by saying that the rifle used was not automatic and was semi-automatic. The misconception is very apparent. Ill continue to say that the problem that needs to be addressed is the individuals how have these tendencies, not the weapons themselves. I do agree that if the guns didn't exist then the problem would go away. However, there will always be a black market for this type of thing and they will never be completely removed from our society.

I knew you were building this strawman from the getgo. As soon as anybody puts up any definition, you can hare your counter argument but you completely missed the point of his definition. Guns like the one the shooter used are ridiculous in a modern civilized (sorta) society.

Let me return a question to you. What need or needs do you have to possess a rifle like a Bushmaster .233 with a 30 round magazine?

As for the definition of what is an assault rifle, I'll leave you with this:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.