The only change I would suggest is to change “Carry a rifle” to “possess a rifle to defend myself and my family”
2 Likes
This is the kind of feedback I’m looking for. I grew up in the South Bronx so I don’t know how to speak the political vernacular that’ll make their toes curl. Thank you
1 Like
I’m learning that myself every day! Happy that I could help and always feel free to reach out with help on these kinds of things. I am always happy to help the best I can.
Side note: I don’t know many people who do understand political or legal speak. It’s like a foreign language!
2 Likes
The tax stamp for machine guns is not $3,000… it is $200 just like all other Class III items. In the big picture, it is peanuts compared to the purchase price of machine guns. There about 250,000 legal machine guns in the country - and since none can be imported or manufactured for civilian sale any more, every year the number goes down and the price goes up. Machine guns are one of the fastest appreciating assets in which you can invest. Of course, there is always the danger that some wacko government will suddenly outlaw them altogether. I have made tremendous profits (yes, including the time/cost of money) by buying machine guns and then selling them about ten years later. All that being said, I totally support repealing the NFA.
2 Likes
I believe that would also get rid of the requirement for an FFL. I haven’t really thought it through, but at this point I wouldn’t be opposed. The NFA, itself, was patterned after the laws Hitler had in place in Germany - which made slaves of the German people, so I’m definitely in favor of eliminating that.
4 Likes
Did you get this all incorrect? I was going to say more, but it not in my instance. You would just turn that around too. Have a great day and a long life.
No, I read your posts and your stance is quite clear. You do not believe in our RKBA, except where what you believe people should be “allowed” and what you believe pertains to you. Thankfully, you do not have that authority nor ability.
You claim you have all this knowledge and training, yet you get many basic facts wrong, such as the cost of a tax stamp for an automatic weapon - as @Rich7 pointed out to you. Rather than wonder what the tax stamp costs for automatic weapons, you could easily have researched that, besides the fact that anyone that knows anything about the NFA would have already known the cost of the tax stamp that “allows” one to purchase and own NFA items - and I do not even own any NFA items.
Their are people, who likes to push the 2nd to far.
Some people think they need the armory of the Armed Forces of the USA in their home.
the law is to considered, if it is a rifle or a short-barreled rifle.
I can’t believe someone needs the armory of the Armed Forces of the USA in their home.
That would be one big house!
[Y]ou can follow the Law, or be a with the criminals who take advantage of the LAW.
What are you going to do with all that firepower, just look at? I would just like to have and AR-15 in 5.56 but I can’t buy one. retried no money.
I replied to your last statement, stating, “Just because you can’t “afford” something does not mean it should be illegal. If I gave you $1,200 to buy an AR-15, would you then advocate for “legal” ownership of semi-auto firearms?” You did not answer that question.
I am honestly asking that question, and I would buy you an AR-15 if that got you to stop whining about others having a firearm you believe you are unable to afford, and would advocate for our RKBA, not only those rights that pertain to your circumstances, but as written in our federal Constitution, and similarly in many states.
For your review, here is the federal Second Amendment, and Article I, Section 13, of the Commonwealth of Virginia (I am a Virginia resident):
Federal Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Article I, Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
3 Likes
I was not going to reply to this, but I have a 2nd flag on my flagpole. So, you didn’t have to right it all down. And now for AR-15, if I had one, what would I do with it. Go out and shot tan cans at 150 yards are 200 yards. But if it makes you feal good, you can buy me one. And I don’t care if people know were I live.
Send Cashier’s Check to that address, I will get it. Make it out to: Larry Ingram Sr.
Have a great day and a long life.
You have still failed to answer my question, whether you would then advocate for our RKBA, not just what you believe pertains to you.
That is not the issue you posed in your post about not being able to afford one. Neither did I ask that question. I do not have one for a similar reason - that I have no place readily available to shoot it. What you stated was that you could not afford one. So, if you had one, would you then advocate for ownership of semi-automatic firearms, and our RKBA as written by the Second Amendment - “shall not be infringed”?
you said: I will gave you $1,200 to buy AR-15. And ask if I would advocate for legal ownership of a semi-auto firearms. I have never said no one has the right to a semi-auto firearm. Read your long-winded reply.
Time to pay up!!! PS: The politcal-era of policing is why we have the laws on the books from the ATF. They were out gun in the politcal-era of policing. But it was not called ATF at that time. I look at all of my reply and no where, did I say you don’t have a right to semi-auto.
An AR-15 is a semi-auto. You still have not agreed with my statement about advocating for the 2A, without exceptions you believe in. Even though you claimed the only reason you believe others should not be “allowed” to have an AR-15 is because you cannot afford one.
Everyone always talks about Hitler but no one ever talks about Stalin. Communism and Marxism are very popular now in our country. Especially Commiefornia, Colorado, Oregon, New York, and every other liberal Democrat state. Now Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people. No group in society has ever killed more people than Communists. If California started to kill citizens, who would defend them. That’s why I ask everyone to support the GRAM act. Support the GRAM Act - Firearms Policy Coalition
The Second Amendment defends all Americans, no matter what they’re beliefs are.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 46)
1 Like
Here are a few Supreme Court cases to bear in mind. Remember, if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, then they don’t have to worry about the answers.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them."
"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486,489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
“To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885).
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.”
1 Like
Good luck telling that to a liberal Marxist Judge. The NYSRPA vs Bruen case has shown that even Supreme Court officials are for restricting Constitutional rights. Look at the bumpstock ban in the Ninth Circuit Court, meanwhile Nevada falls under the Ninth Circuit Court. Look into Barack Obamas friendship with Bill Ayers. A known Communist Terrorist.
2 Likes
I didn’t say that the Justice system, DOJ, courts, et al, were just or fair. Just what the law has said. In addition, you would have to be very good at writing legal paper or have enough wealth to hire someone who was.
In addition, when you go into their courts, you are in a territorial tribunal, that operates under Article 1 of the Constitution. A real court should be operating under Article 3 of the Constitution.
1 Like
Are you high on drugs Dave17 ! Nowhere did I say others should not be allowed to have an AR-15 because I cannot afford one. And you can, want to repeal NFA all you want, but it’s like the war on drugs. No one will win. Have a great day and long life. PS: if you still want to buy me and AR-15, I won’t hold my breath. LOL
No, not in the least. Thanks for your concern.
As I stated, only if you believed in our RKBA, and not only what you believe we should be “allowed” by our government. You have made it quite clear you believe in infringing on our right that “shall not be infringed.”
So if it is not affordability that makes you believe others should not have a semi-auto rifle, what is it? As to “all that fireapower”, you should know, based on all of your certificates, that there are numerous other rifles that are far more powerful than a rifle in .223/5.56, but I have not seen you argue against our being allowed those. Should we also not be “allowed” to have them, such as an AR-10, a Garand, an actual military rifle? Both use a more powerful round than an AR-15 in .223/5.56.
1 Like
yes I beleive in RKBA, but I will still go by the Laws of USA
You cannot seriously be asking that question. However, in case you actually are this ignorant, after all your “training” and certificates, etc., the RKBA is an acronym for the “right to keep and bear arms”. Notice it states arms, not handguns, or small arms, or whatever other non-sense those that do not believe in our inalienable rights believe our rights are. Read carefully those same words in our federal Second Amendment and in Article I, Section 13, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
In case you will ask what does infringe mean, you can read it here, or here, and below.
Infringe
to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
Federal Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Article I, Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power .
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
1 Like
Have you ever heard of nullification?