Assault weapons ban lifted?

[m-98]

I heard that the assault weapons ban runs out after this year and probably won't be extended. Has anyone been able to confirm this?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

if it does it will be extended with all of the patriot act stuff and terrorism.

[pbzmag]

What state?

[Tunaman]

With guns such as the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle falling under this category, its a good thing that it is being lifted. People dont use these weapons to kill other people...most of them were(are) being used for shooting sports anyway.

[Remington]

Someone posted in the "Mag on Steroids" thread that you can get a FFL(Federal Firearms License) and that lets you purchase any firearm you want, if you pass the qualifications. Is that true?

[Sir_Brass]

it's called a classIII license and it allows you to buy automatic weapons. of course, it costs you a pretty penny to get, and probably comes with alot of federal monitoring, but at least you have the freedom to purchase what weapons you want. if you're a law-abiding citizen, then you won't use them for illegal means.

[Rooster]

This illegal law should have been lifted a long time ago.

[ramennoodles]

its not illegal, and i don't see how it could be constrewed[sp?] as illegal.

[FactsOfLife]

Violates the 2nd.

[m-98]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
Violates the 2nd.

The 2nd states that a well formed militia has the right to bear arms, not necessarily an individual. Also, how do we know it is not the right to wear sleaveless shirts, we weren't around back then. Although I agree that we should be able to own those firearms.

pbzmag: it's the entire country.

[PyRo]

Originally posted by m-98

Also, how do we know it is not the right to wear sleaveless shirts, we weren't around back then.

Please tell me this is a joke.

[BobTheCow]

Originally posted by PyRo
Please tell me this is a joke.

yeah... /me confused

[m-98]

Originally posted by PyRo


Please tell me this is a joke.

It is, I'm basically saying that the Constitution was written 200 years ago and how do we know exactly what a certain part means.

[PyRo]

I really don't think there would be that big of a misconception.
Maybie when they were planning the government they really ment to say I should be the dictator and just had a really wierd way of wording it. I demand my rightfully place as king of the United States!!!

[davidb]

Make up your mind, king or dictator?!

Personally, I think it is quite conceivable that the founders never anticipated that weapons would never advance to the point of being.. well, purely military. What I mean, is that back in the day the same gun that you went hunting with could very well have been the deadliest thing available for a soldier on the battlefield, whereas today, you know, you wouldn't go hunting (or defending your home, for that matter) in a main battle tank.

On the other hand, I'm fairly certain that there was never a law against merchant ships packing as many cannons as they could carry, so that they wouldn't have to trust their government to protect them (which it really isn't explicitly obligated to do). In effect, it was deemed that they were entitled to wage war, using the weapons of war, to protect themselves.

Not really stating firmly held beliefs, just more or less thinking out loud. So, if you disagree, there's a good chance you could convince me.