Login or register
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
User avatar #215 - YoursTruley
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
M4....not...not legal in the first place....i dont know what they are trying to get at....all assault rifles have been banned...i dont......wtf?

also...people can kill with bombs too...as we have seen...problem isn't guns...it's people

User avatar #246 to #215 - catsareforcancer
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]


Son, that there is an AR15. Albeit, one of the fully-automatic variety. I also heard that the gun legislations never passed so please point me to the source where assault rifles have been banned.
User avatar #281 to #246 - YoursTruley
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
i do think that is still an m-4 judging by her size and how big it is compared to her, m4s, as you know are smaller, and not banned i guess but:

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

and seeing how an assult rifle is defined b being able to be full-auto, the above applies. (yes the 19994 ban did expire but the other did not)
#416 to #281 - dildzmiester
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2013) [-]
Not quite sure but ya it does look more like a carbine than a rifle, could be an M4
User avatar #313 to #281 - catsareforcancer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
One could also argue semantics, though, what is the legal definition of a "machine gun" and "assault rifle." I did hear from somewhere that the term assault rifle was simply some arbitrary term used by people looking to ban the same type of weapons the average american can buy today.

When I hear of a "machine gun" I think of a crew-served weapon. To make this clear, I'm in no way against you, just trying to get that part out of the way before it comes up.
User avatar #337 to #313 - YoursTruley
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
no i understand, but the legal definition from the encyclopedia of Britannica is in short
"An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

the thing is, is people dont understand the differences between assault rifles and rifles that are modified to look as such.

banning them will do nothing because they are basically already super hard to get.
it is honestly like no lawmaker or lawyers have done their homework.

#230 to #215 - savirleo
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Didn't you hear? A sniper rifle killed some people with the help of a white van and a human
User avatar #232 to #230 - YoursTruley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
#239 to #232 - savirleo
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/21/2013) [-]
Trust me, I'm a journalist