Do I need the sarc/ here?
Posted on 10/18/2012 7:21:03 AM PDT by Colonel Robert Hogan
[Yes, I know that select-fire weapons effectively aren’t legal – what the myriad hoops you have to jump through have one – and only those made before 1986.]
But that isn’t the impression you get from a couple of mega-barf inducing spew from the Loony left.
In one article from “crooks and liars”, they’re trying to pretend that Governor Mitt Romney (Our next president) made a major gaffe when he said that automatic weapons are illegal: …….. Romney Bizarrely Claims Automatic Weapons Are 'Illegal' in the US:
This is truly one of the strangest claims I've ever seen a presidential candidate make during a debate.
MS. CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.
MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and — and taking guns away or — or making certain guns illegal. We of course don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.
This is right up there with Ford's "Eastern Europe" gaffe.
What the hell is Romney talking about? Of course it's legal to have automatic weapons in this country. …… This was backed up by that bastion of objectivity – the LA Times:
Fact Check: Romney says it's illegal to have automatic weapons
They at least set the facts straight.
Never-the-less, I really wish you people would let me know these things – here I thought that select fire weapons were out of reach and I find out from Looney Left sources that isn’t the case.
/sarc.
Whoops! Hit the post button instead of the review button – hope the posting came out okay.
I get all my automatic weapons at Machine Guns R Us. /s
This is embarrassing!
I have seen Class III firearms at gun shows. Access depends on the state- NV and MA and I think AZ allow citizens to own Class III, other states don’t. Each state has its own rules and restrictions, I know storage is a big deal.
So in addition to paying huge bux for an old M16, expect to pay another kilobuk or so on fees and storage issues.
I think it was HW Bush who banned the civilian sale of Class III for firearms made after (guessing) 1986, so anything you get is going to be vintage.
Romney should have known better, but then, in 2004 he ranted on about how deadly “assault weapons” were and signed what he thought was a permanent ban in MA (because the Federal ban was expiring). Then he lied about being a gun owner, so I don’t expect much from him with respect to RKBA.
Hopefully Paul Ryan will pull Romney aside and educate him before he makes a fool of himself again.
Only SOME fully automatic firearms are legal at the federal level. Only SOME states allow residents to purchase SOME of them. It is strongly suggested that you research this thoroughly as the government loves to make an example of anyone who violates the law.
“I will not make any new gun laws”.
Mitt Romney (2nd debate)
I used to own quite a few more, but they appreciated in value so much, I couldn't justify keeping them.
This is true, but this is more about ripping the Kneepad Media that works day and night trying to get ‘The Won’ re-elected.
The impression they want to convey on this supposed ‘gaffe’ is not really true.
It’s like the situation South of the Border – they supposedly have a version of the 2nd amendment but it so regulated only the Drug cartels have them – courtesy of the Barack Hussein Regime.
Why are poll taxes illegal, yet weapons taxes not?
As I said – this is more about a Media anxious to have a man hostile to the idea of self-defense re-elected that they would play with the facts in order to manufacture yet another gaffe.
That they do – this is a case where these weapons are effectively illegal under heavy regulation – as the left would like to do with every type of gun.
If machine guns are “illegal”, maybe someone would like to ‘splain this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCj91veYtm4&feature=related
And yes, I’m being a bit sarcastic.
executive branch does not ‘make laws’. they can issue
executive orders, though, and can sign laws passed by congress. i have no doubt that romney would sign an awb
if passed in the congress. gw bush said he would have signed one if passed and he was arguably a bit more friendly to us on this issue..
Selective fire guns are illegal. Full auto only are legal with a Class 3 stamp. Even here in The Peoples Republic of Connecticut.
If I only knew in 1986 what I know today.... Woulda bought a case of M-16 lower receivers. Could have paid for all my kids’ college education that way.
Class III firearms are legal in Virginia. No stupid restrictions on Constitutional rights.
Romney gave the perfect reply on that gotcha question.
He is the only politician I have ever seen differentiate between semi automatic and automatic weapons on the national stage, and he called the President out on his lie that automatic weapons were used on a daily basis in crimes and killings.
Automatic weapons(machine guns) ARE illegal unless you have the proper license. Automatic weapon production for normal civilian transferable purposes was banned in 1986 and all of the machine guns currently in civilian hands are either grandfathered in as being owned prior to the ban or are in the hands of dealers for demonstration purposes for Law Enforcement or Military sales.If you are in possession of an unregistered machine gun or you do have the proper ownership license you be a guest of the Federal Government on the Felony Farm for about 10 years.
IN THE SAME OBAMA EXPLICITLY STATED HE WAS FOR A NEW ASSAULT WEAPON BAN.
ROMNEY ALL THE WAY
(s) does this mean class iii lic. are going to be “shall issue” lic.? (/s)
I still think that in the event of a post-election-day riot by Holder’s “people”, an old-fashioned hand-crank Gatling would work best. We live in an age of paved roads that tend to funnel the Horde.
I think we have to agree to disagree on this one, Colonel, Romney screwed up, or at least displayed ignorance on an important gun rights point, and Obama’s machine is letting everyone know about it like any campaign would when the other side has a “gaffe” or serious error of fact.
Another Progressive’s slip of the tongue!
Or should I say
Another Progressive slip of the tongue?
LLS
Yes, exactly.
The impression the left would like to leave with ‘Low-information’ voters is that Machine guns are legal and that (as Bill O’Reilly implied once) – you can stroll into a gun show and buy one anytime you want no questions asked.
We know that really isn’t the case, but for ‘Low-information’ voters, they think that there are people running around with machine guns – and their ‘Low-information’ emotional reaction is to put a stop to it.
This is the same type of emotional response they want to get over Scary-Looking weapons (so-called ‘Assault Weapons’)
Compare Guns sold during the AWB ban period and Pre – or – Post ban weapons – they are effectively the same guns except for cosmetic items like flash hiders and bayonet lugs.
Those scary looking features don’t make a bit of difference in the workings of the gun, but the Left would like you to believe that banning those items bans those guns – that isn’t the case.
If fact, during the ban that was one of the things the left whined about that their vaunted ban didn’t do as advertised, but merely changed the look of some guns.
In those states where it is legal, the best path to owning NFA firearms is to set up a firearms trust.
The advantages are that no police chief of sheriff has to sign off on it, and any number of people named as trustees may possess the weapons, rather than just an individual.
The trust can even name a minor as the beneficiary.
Google “firearms trust” or go to
www.guntrustlawyer.com/
Perhaps he did to a certain extent – but this is more of a case of the knee-pad media trying to manufacture yet another gaffe.
Read my other comments on ‘Low-information’ voters – the dear liar’s media minions know that most people will just read the headline or the first few paragraphs and get their erroneous impression from that –and that’s all they want to accomplish.
The firearms trust can be setup for less than $500.
In addition to not requiring signoff by CLEO, there is no requirement for fingerprints or mug shots.
More full auto goodness http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/
If you elect me to the presidency I promise you that I will repeal the NFA on my first day, then GCA 68, and the HW Bush ban on full auto the next day.
Plus I will mandate that the doctors at Planned Parenthood must dress up as Big Bird.
Not true. One of my friends has a select-fire M16 and a Bren, both he got on a Form 4 (federal tax stamp). Of course, it's North Carolina, which has more freedom than the Northeast Communism Corridor.
I was referring to CT. We have next to no freedom.
“If I only knew in 1986 what I know today.... Woulda bought a case of M-16 lower receivers. Could have paid for all my kids’ college education that way.”
Even better, you could have manufactured and registered 1,000 drop-in, full-auto M-16 sears at $200.00 per registration, and held on to them until they became worth $10,000 to $15,000 each and then sold them.
I applauded when I heard Romney say this but instinctively knew that he was going to get some flak for it. The problem isn’t that what he said was wrong (it isn’t) but that it is technically imprecise.
full-auto weapons obviously aren’t necessarily illegal, but they are subject to special restrictions.
Between like-minded and reasonable people this wouldn’t be an issue but leftists aren’t like-minded and they certainly aren’t reasonable. Leftists make good lawyers because they love to hair-split on the meanings of words. But they make lousy lawyers because they feeeeel that words mean whatever the hell they want them to mean.
Good thing that there’s a gun show this weekend - I need to find some like-minded and reasonable folks to hang out with ;-)
It depends on how you look at as to whether full-auto weapons are can be legally possessed by a civilian citizen.
One way to look at it is that they are illegal except for:
1. Approximately 250,000 full-auto firearms that were legally registered with the NFA prior to October 1986, making them fully transferable to other private owners, depending on specific restrictions that may apply in your local jurisdiction.
2. Full-auto firearms possessed as dealer-samples by an FFL with a Class III or Class II license. These can include “non-transferable” full-auto weapons that can be sold only to the police, military or other Class III or Class II licensees. (The Class II license is particularly interesting as it allows manufacturing and possession of virtually any full-auto weapon, including re-conversion or replicas of historic full-auto weapons. The Class II license isn’t that difficult or expensive to obtain or maintain, and for many, it can be a cheaper way to own full-auto weapons than purchasing transferable weapons at market prices. I actually know someone who does this.)
Part of the appeal for the socialists of the loony left is that they can try to make ‘Low-information’ voters think that this was a gaffe and they can elicit an emotional response to all these Machine guns floating around.
That’s that feeeeel part you mentioned.
Part of the hair splitting helps them in that they can also pretend that these guns aren’t ‘Technically’ illegal because of all the hoops that need to be jumped through to comply with the law.
This lie on their part is also a win-win since they can apply the same ‘logic’ later on to every other type of gun.
i.e. they could effectively outlaw all guns by regulating the excrement out of them but at the same time they can claim they are still ‘legal’.
People in da hood go to “Pistols and Shit”.
Thing is, most people aren’t going to look into the details and this story will give them the false impression that Machine guns are easily had and freely available.
Go to a local gun show and stand near a table selling AR’s and most likely you’ll hear some uniformed person just off the street refer to them as ‘machine guns’.
The Left lives on Ignorance.
Then consider me confused too because I'm not aware there is a difference between the threee......So what is the difference?
“the HW Bush ban on full auto”
Actually, it was Reagan who signed off on the ban, as part of the otherwise-good McClure-Volkmer Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. The language was slipped in on a voice vote, of questionable legality and even more questionable outcome.
George H.W. Bush signed off on banning further import of “assault weapons”, IIRC.
Legal automatic weapons are similar to legal Cocaine. Legal versions can be obtained with a great deal of time and effort, but most reasonable people assume that they are illegal for most of the people most of the time.
yada yada yada
But we gun nuts know that Romney was speaking to additional gun control laws, of which automatic firearms are highly regulated.
In the context of the gun control question, it was accurate.
I don't mean to disrespect you but I'm sorry sir, what you are refering to is a "semi-automatic" which is a single fire, auto load handgun or rifle. Specifically, one trigger pull, one round fired, one round injected into chamber, another trigger pull, another round injected into chamber.......until the magazine is depleted
"Automatic or full auto" is properly used when describing single trigger pull and multiple rounds being fired.
There is a vast difference between "auto" and "semi-auto"........ >
I appreciate your response and fully understand your explanation but I disagree with your first sentence. An "automatic" is indeed interpreted as a one trigger pull, unlimited firing as are full-autos. So there's really no difference between the two unless you are parsing words.
There is a vast difference between "auto" and "semi-auto"........ Some Machine guns fire up to three rounds per trigger pull.
As much as I dislike saying it, you sir are clueless on firearms...........
NO IT DOES NOT
An Automatic pistol fires one round per trigger pull.
NO IT DOES NOT
Sometimes they are called auto loading.
ADDRESSING YOUR ORIGINAL PREMISE, NO THEY ARE NOT. However, all semi-autos and full autos are "auto loading"
All the terms I have used are correct.
NO THEY ARE NOT
There is a lot of difference between a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle), a machine gun and a Browning automatic rifle
NO THERE IS NOT, they're one in the same
or a Browning automatic pistol
Browning does not manufacture an "automatic pistol"
Unfortunately the terms are often confused and used interchangeably.
Only by the uninformed, which you appear to be.....
I wrote the “some machine guns fire up to three rounds per trigger pull”. I should have said some machine guns can only fire up to three rounds per trigger pull as the “Triburst” design to save ammo.
That is true but only thru a special conversion kit.......
You are right, I know nothing about guns.
Finally there is something we both can agree upon.........
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=browing+automatic+pistol&qpvt=browing+automatic+pistol&FORM=IGRE
Most of the confusion comes through old terms and new terms.
An Automatic Shotgun fires one round per trigger pull.
NO IT DOES NOT
Do at least a little research.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=browing+automatic+shotgun&qpvt=browing+automatic+shotgun&FORM=IGRE I wrote the “some machine guns fire up to three rounds per trigger pull”. I should have said some machine guns can only fire up to three rounds per trigger pull as the “Triburst” design to save ammo. It is a military issue not a kit.
“Thing is, most people aren’t going to look into the details and this story will give them the false impression that Machine guns are easily had and freely available.”
Actually, almost all of the public and most of the ignorant press believes that full auto weapons are illegal (at least that part of the press that actually understands the difference between full-auto and semi-auto), and those of us who legally own full-autos are quite happy that they keep on erroneously thinking that.
Do I need the sarc/ here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.