GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   NRA opposes 'bump fire stocks' bills in Congress (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1281677)

bronco67 10-13-2017 03:58 PM

Think about this....the Republican element of our government is the paid bitch of a right wing fringe group. They can't take a shit without the NRA's permission. The NRA should be raided, the organization dismantled and the headquarters brought to the ground with TNT. They're a fucking terrorist group.

pimpmaster9000 10-13-2017 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z (Post 22035895)
Ten "assault rifles" per crate. $4,000.

https://www.classicfirearms.com/yugo-sks-for-sale

Those accept 30 round mags and fire the same round as the AK47.

So you think people should be prohibited from buying that crate?

Well I can not think of any good reason for people not being able to buy a cheap crate of AK-47...nothing wrong with that at all LOL

crockett 10-13-2017 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 22035271)
look if everybody at that concert had a rocket launcher things would have been different...the USA should pass a law to classify lepoard tanks as hunting ATV-s...look how stylish it is in desert camo:

https://i1.wp.com/fighting-vehicles....6-HEL-Tank.jpg

also...this home rocket launcher protection system is a must have:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...T813_army2.JPG

and how stylish would this look for open carry:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fiDlIe0VzJU/maxresdefault.jpg


fucking awesome if you ask me...

Actually, we can own military vehicles if we want, including tanks. They just can't have functioning guns.

Although I haven't seen modern tanks out there but there are lots of ww2 and 70s/80's era tanks in private collections.

MrBottomTooth 10-13-2017 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z (Post 22035895)
Ten "assault rifles" per crate. $4,000.

https://www.classicfirearms.com/yugo-sks-for-sale

Those accept 30 round mags and fire the same round as the AK47.

So you think people should be prohibited from buying that crate?

They even let us have those in Canada. Ours are limited to 5 rounds though. The Yugo ones are hard to find here but the Russian and Chinese ones can be bought for less than $250 Canadian each at Canadian Tire lol.

VRPdommy 10-13-2017 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 22035005)
LOL - What bullshit.

The NRA came out in support of laws against "bump fire stocks" but now that it might just happened they suddenly back tracked. Heaven forbid should they allow a gun law to be passed.

NRA opposes 'bump fire stocks' bills in Congress

They do not want a law. A law is much harder to change or amend it to be powerless.

They want it done through executive order. They might be able to do that but the first challenge to it will dismiss it in a federal or supreme court. The same stuff they were accusing Obama of... legislating from the executive branch.
Much the same way they want to legislate though the supreme court.
But the ATF does not have the power to 'create' regulation. Just enforce what congress passes. So congress will have to authorize them to create rules. Which they are not going to do because the next POTUS could quickly end it all together and create more stringent rules without congressional approval.

Some segments of the executive branch (presidents enforcement dept folks) have been given the authority to create regulation. Like the Food and Drug Admin. & the EPA. And only with some things for the FAA & FCC. Everyone who has authority has a very defined limited scope to work within.

So that is why you see congress always tries to keep a tough budget battle... so they can limit the funding to those agency's that have the authority to create regulation.
And in effect be powerless to enforce any of it from the lack of funds.


So if they create no law...
Those congressmen don't have to answer to their constituents next election.
And the measure can be softened at will by executive order when nobody is watching or cares.

And we have our constitution turned upside down. Nobody wants to do the job they ran for and was elected to do.

Barry-xlovecam 10-13-2017 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 22035939)
This is something I do not understand in any way, shape, or form.

The United States military is prohibited from conducting operations in the USA. Yet how many Marines do we have working disaster relief in Puerto Rico right now? Are they not using military ships and planes in support of relief efforts in Puerto Rico? When Japan attacked Hawaii in 1941, did the United States stationed there not fire back? Did they say "We are not allowed to conduction operations in the USA?" and just do nothing? (Keep in mind Hawaii wasn't a US state then.)

The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Soldiers defending the nation are not executing the civil laws neither are soldiers rendering aid to civilians.

Soldiers acting as policemen (enforcing civil laws) is my understanding of the posse comitatus prohibited acts. There is an allowed use of soldiers to cure civil insurrection or riots.

VRPdommy 10-13-2017 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 22036125)
The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Soldiers defending the nation are not executing the civil laws neither are soldiers rendering aid to civilians.

Soldiers acting as policemen (enforcing civil laws) is my understanding of the posse comitatus prohibited acts. There is an allowed use of soldiers to cure civil insurrection or riots.

Good stuff...
But, who gets to determine civil insurrection or riots by definition since it is not provided ?

VRPdommy 10-13-2017 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFCash (Post 22035229)
...
Secondly, if your really concerned about the general population of where ever it is that you live, and you think passing gun laws will make you safer. Then you should also pass laws against "Big Mac's" "Whoppers" and "Coke" cause they kill like 83 times more people each year than guns, so let's focus on all the things that kill people and stop putting our heads in the sand every time some nut job falls off the wagon :Oh crap

I have never seen a crowd of people leveled with a WHOPPER in a few minutes that volunteered for the experience unaware of the dangers.


DBS.US 10-13-2017 09:11 PM

"These bills are intentionally overreaching and would ban commonly owned firearm accessories."

VRPdommy 10-13-2017 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBS.US (Post 22036263)
"These bills are intentionally overreaching and would ban commonly owned firearm accessories."

I am wondering how you can say that because they have not allowed one to come to the floor for a discussion, Let alone a vote. They fear that they will pass so they use house procedure rules to keep them from coming to the floor in the first place.

Rochard 10-13-2017 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 22036125)
The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Soldiers defending the nation are not executing the civil laws neither are soldiers rendering aid to civilians.

Soldiers acting as policemen (enforcing civil laws) is my understanding of the posse comitatus prohibited acts. There is an allowed use of soldiers to cure civil insurrection or riots.

You missed the point. Our military is not allowed to conduct "military operations" on US soil blah blah blah expect but they can.

I understand why this exists - they don't want the military to go to war with it's civilian population. However, if civil war was to break out do you think the US military will just stand by and say "have at it"? No, of course not.

The US Constitution is very much like the bible - Written a long time ago, and a lot of things no longer apply. The bible states you can be stoned to death for wearing clothes made up of two different threads, yet we violate that on a regular basis. The US Constitution is very similar - it was written in time when civilians feared their governments, mostly because US citizens at the time felt poorly treated by England and even more so after England sent their armies after us. This needs to be removed from our Constitution - Trust me, if our military decides to turn on the US population what the Constitution says will not matter, and the civilian population will have zero hope of fighting against the US military. It's not like everyone has muskets these days.

Rochard 10-13-2017 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamelinkjeff (Post 22035607)
Guns are not in our constitution for sporting or home defense. They are there to protect the people if the Untied States of America from the government becoming to powerful.

If you dont like the constitution then change it because Im sure our forefathers forgot to put in there a mass tragedy clause lol

Sure sure. I understand that. But does anyone really think a handful of civilians are going to take on the US military? LOL.

tony286 10-14-2017 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z (Post 22035911)
The US military is prohibited by the constitution from conducting operations within the USA. But let's just assume the country fell to pieces. Do you really think members of the military are going to fight against their own kind?

A more logical scenario for this would be the federal government dissolving and the threat coming from local entities who don't have F-22 planes to do bombing runs on neighborhoods.

THINK before you speak.

They have before learn American history before commenting on it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

VRPdommy 10-14-2017 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z (Post 22035911)
The US military is prohibited by the constitution from conducting operations within the USA. But let's just assume the country fell to pieces. Do you really think members of the military are going to fight against their own kind?

A more logical scenario for this would be the federal government dissolving and the threat coming from local entities who don't have F-22 planes to do bombing runs on neighborhoods.

THINK before you speak.

But the state militias (state national guard) do have F22 Raptors !


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123