4th time:
You caught the part where it is specifically noted that the license in questio is for ALL reporters, not just for boradcast, and that said license is for the persnoal exercise of a right, not the priviledged use of public property, yes?
If so, you understand how your responses here aren't relevant, and you're simply trolling.
If not, then you need to learn how to read.
Your call.
And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license. Even with a broadcasting license you still need other legal documents acrediting you as a reporter if you plan on reporting anything more important then ducks swimming in a pond. You don't simply get to walk into the White House press room because you say you're a reporter.
I see you've decided that you're trolling. Thanks for the decisiveness.And I've explained to you that...
And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license.
And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license. Even with a broadcasting license you still need other legal documents acrediting you as a reporter if you plan on reporting anything more important then ducks swimming in a pond. You don't simply get to walk into the White House press room because you say you're a reporter.
You mean turning it to mere guidelines.I'm a strong believer in implied powers and reinterpretation of the constitution in accordance with modern needs,
Whats the diff between "Machine guns" and "automatic rifles"?
:lol: it was a rhetorical question to expose the ignorance of the poll.
I wasn't aware you could belt feed a Steyr AUG without considerable re-engineering of the entire weapon. Could you point me to a site that shows this?
For one who attacks others on alleged ignorance, you should be informed as how to turn a rifle like the Steyr AUG into a belt fed machine gun without having to significently redesign the weapon.
PKM vs Steyr AUG.
Fair enough. You win on definitions (which are rather retarded as it makes mere parts machine guns thus begging the question of rationality of the law) Add that to your single digit list of victories. This makes...5?
Fair enough. You win on definitions (which are rather retarded as it makes mere parts machine guns thus begging the question of rationality of the law)
Your statement marked in red is what scares me about most gun laws. The people making the laws don't know anything about the actual weapons. If they did, most gun laws would go away.
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
So what is the best technuique when knitting a quilt? :2wave:
That isn't the case for the rifle and shotgun section of the law.
US CODE: Title 26,5845. Definitions
Mere parts are machine guns?
That isn't the case for the rifle and shotgun section of the law.
Enjoying your smack?
For someone who wins on definitions (especially retarded ones that makes the trigger of a machine gun a machine gun in itself), you outta try harder elsewhere. You know, like the economics forum. Which requires a brain. Why do I never see you in there?
Do you agree with this definition?I agree the definition is retarted in the sense of US law. But thems the facts. However, the initial definition calls for a magazine or belt. I also answered your snide question about a Steyr, putting you in your rightful place.
As for the Economics forum. Most of that crap bores me. This is why I have a staff of accountants for both my business and personal. I am far to rich to count my own money. I have "the help" do it. Anyway, I am in there time to time, But I don't start dumb threads that demonstrate a fundamental ignorance on a topic simply to get off on some hoplophobic hard-on. :lol::2wave:
So in a discussion with a nameless handle, he agreed that the average citizen should have the legal right to own any and all kinds of armaments. I'd like to see just what the rest of the forum agrees should be legal and what the rest of you people think about the list.
I'm against every kind of war weapons in privat property.
Could you give an example of a peace-weapon?
Not true at all. They have fully automatic shotguns and rifles as well. You are like most legislators confusing function with style
(d) Shotgun
The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?