Here's the conversation:
So I had mentioned in the very post you quoted that you require an appropriate license to own (an FFL Class 3 license I believe) and you confirmed in your response "they would have to have a license." What exactly are you asking me to respond to since we both agree on what's required to legally own something like a grenade?
Please link to Democrats having complete control for years! Iirc, it was months, not years.
Good news is republicans now control everything and what have they done to stop the problem, make it easier for people with mental problems to buy guns Great start republicans!
So what you're saying is that if someone wants to commit mass murder and doesn't have access to a rifle, they will use bombs to kill them instead? Wow...................I for one am hesitant to support gun bans (especially targeted ones for a particular type of weapon like the AR-15 platform) because I'm concerned it might just redirect would-be mass killers into other weapons which might be worse than doing nothing at all. We've seen mass killers use guns, trucks, bombs, airplanes, anthrax via mail, poison gas, and any number of weapons and we can't ban every single thing which could kill masses of people. Sure it would be helpful if we could snap our fingers and mass shootings with assault rifles disappeared from America, but if the unintended consequence is that mass killers use different tactics the next mass killing might be a few hundred or thousand people rather than a dozen or so. Even if that didn't happen it doesn't help much if shooters just changed from AR-15s to pistols firing rifle cartridges which would be just as dangerous as assault rifles and far more concealable. Or Remington 700 "hunting rifles." Or whatever else. I think it's extremely wishful thinking to believe that banning guns would stop mass killings, hell it might not even slow it down. My hesitation isn't "no, not ever" but considering the last assault weapon ban didn't do much I'm a bit skeptical the next will help much either.
Yes, so a license, that's not easily obtainable is required and as I said, for all intents and purposes make owning a grenade illegal. The original question which you did not answer was, why is it illegal to own a grenade?
Just to move past the pendantics, I'll rephrase the question for you; why is owning a grenade made really difficult?
So what you're saying is that if someone wants to commit mass murder and doesn't have access to a rifle, they will use bombs to kill them instead? Wow...................
While I'm not a lawyer or super subject matter expert on this topic, it's my understanding that an explosive device license isn't THAT hard to get. The restrictions on getting one basically only rule you out if you're below 21, are ineligible to own a gun due to a past felony, and the like. And if you're an owner rather than a dealer the cost isn't that especially prohibitive either. This BATF pamphlet says "Each applicant for a license or permit shall pay a fee to be charged as set by the Attorney General, said fee not to exceed $50 for a limited permit and $200 for any other license or permit."
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/docs...ves-laws-and-regulations-atf-p-54007/download
I'll happily admit my error if someone with more expertise corrects me. I'd daresay however that owning a grenade isn't made really difficult, it's just that very few people likely have the desire to obtain one given its relative lack of practicality and the challenges in storage and such. Unlike a firearm you can't just remove the dangerous part and render the thing completely harmless, there's no magazine of ammunition to remove from a live grenade so it's not particularly practical or attractive to display your grenade collection over your fireplace mantle like you might an unloaded rifle. For the cost of the license and the other hassles of ownership it's probably much easier just to find a FFL Class 3 licensee who can provide one at a range for you so your "ownership" only lasts for the amount of time needed to take physical possession, arm the grenade, deploy it, and listen for the boom from within your foxhole.
They already have previously, IIRC the largest U.S.mass killing (excluding 9/11) is still the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh.
This must be really difficult for you as you have avoided the question three times now.
This must be really difficult for you as you have avoided the question three times now.
You're not saying what he wants you to say so you're "avoiding his question" . He will only accept an answer that he has already made up in his mind.What question am I avoiding? I think you incorrectly believe that owning a grenade is nigh impossible and it's not, I linked the appropriate guidelines as far as I can tell and you've not disputed them. Do you expect me to pretend it is super-difficult to answer your question?
What question am I avoiding? I think you incorrectly believe that owning a grenade is nigh impossible and it's not, I linked the appropriate guidelines as far as I can tell and you've not disputed them. Do you expect me to pretend it is super-difficult to answer your question?
If you want to know why the NFA classifies grenades as destructive devices but not semi-automatic rifles then go ask the authors of the law.
If you want to know why the NFA classifies grenades as destructive devices but not semi-automatic rifles then go ask the authors of the law.
Yeah, I'd liken it to how you need a different class of license to drive a passenger car than you would an 18-wheeler. Neither class of license is that tremendously hard to obtain although I guess fees might be different? Ivwshane keeps going back to the same question with acknowledging the information which he's been provided and perhaps changing his question appropriately because what he's asking now doesn't make much sense. I guess the point he's trying to make is that purchase and sales of semi-auto rifles should be handled with the exact same requirements as things determined to by "explosive devices" under the law?
Yeah, I'd liken it to how you need a different class of license to drive a passenger car than you would an 18-wheeler. Neither class of license is that tremendously hard to obtain although I guess fees might be different? Ivwshane keeps going back to the same question with acknowledging the information which he's been provided and perhaps changing his question appropriately because what he's asking now doesn't make much sense. I guess the point he's trying to make is that purchase and sales of semi-auto rifles should be handled with the exact same requirements as things determined to by "explosive devices" under the law?
Fantastic! So now we have you on record as declaring that grenades are not only not illegal, they also aren't difficult to obtain (legal requirements wise, not with regards scarcity).
We also know that the amount of murders from grenades is practically zero (feel free to correct me).
So it seems like a pretty good solution to minimizing how many death come from weapons capable of killing mass amounts of people is to simply make it as prohibitively expensive as possible so that ownership only occurs in relatively small numbers.
Thank you for providing a solution to a problem that not only doesn't violate anyone's 2nd amendment rights, it also doesn't confiscate anyone's guns, it also makes it less likely for these weapons to be purchased as easily as they have been in the past and ensures that only a small minority of people will end up possessing them.
Precisely. Thanks for showing us why that shouldn't be an issue
1. The authors of the NFA are all dead so if they propose changes to it, I think we should all pay attention.Thanks. I can now assume that if those same authors wish to classify other weapons in the same way they do destructive devices you will defer to them and not question the law.
Thank you, your response has been most useful.
That "well balanced" breakfast will kill you faster than you can say "cholesterol doesn'tDoes this make it clearer for people?
Does this make it clearer for people?
That is one of the most awesome clarifications I've ever seen.Does this make it clearer for people?
That is one of the most awesome clarifications I've ever seen.
Thank you.
Yeah, I guess it wouldn't if you could get Congress to pass such a law, POTUS to sign it, and the SCOTUS to uphold it under challenge. The ability to do it is an entirely different discussion than whether we should do it, however. To me personally it sounds like one of those "build a wall" type solutions to a problem that are more of a statement of purpose than something which would actually address your concerns. But people crossing the Mexican border on foot aren't the only kind of illegal immigrant just as semi-automatic rifles aren't the only kind of weapon used for mass killings. Your solution is more akin to mandating stick shift cars to crack down on drunk driving because after all most people drive automatic transmission.
It's a terrible analogy; you are a fucking moron.
WHAAAT? I didn't make the whole world a better place with my asterisk?Sorry, it's captured for all to see you have a potty mouth
LOL, temper tantrum? You confused son!I didn't pledge my allegiance, in fact I said I don't agree with some of what they're about, but that they are the lesser of two evils. Then I said I donated to them and joined the 2A Foundation. Then you wished bad things on me in a temper tantrum.