Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Chernoslavia]

Before opening your mouth, please read the current laws and regulation on owning these kinds of vehicles.

Wait, you too?

Remember, this is about gun ownership. Whether I can own a stripped down shell of a fighter jet to proudly keep on my front lawn is irrelevant. Are you seriously, really, honestly trying to tell me that it's perfectly legal for a private citizen to own and operate an operational and armed strike fighter?

Is this really, truly, the proposition you're trying to sell me on? Do you think I'm that fucking stupid?

Or are you just incapable of remaining on topic?

Pathetic.

So its agreed, you are incapable of supporting your claim.

[Neo Art]

So its agreed, you are incapable of supporting your claim.

Oh thank god, you were the same guy I was originally replying to earlier. You weren't memorable enough to recall your name. That's a relief. For a moment I thought there were two of you running around.

[Ifreann]

Wait, you too?

Remember, this is about gun ownership. Whether I can own a stripped down shell of a fighter jet to proudly keep on my front lawn is irrelevant. Are you seriously, really, honestly trying to tell me that it's perfectly legal for a private citizen to own and operate an operational and armed strike fighter?

Is this really, truly, the proposition you're trying to sell me on? Do you think I'm that fucking stupid?

Or are you just incapable of remaining on topic?

Pathetic.

So its agreed, you are incapable of supporting your claim.

Perhaps you mean your claim.

[Chernoslavia]

So its agreed, you are incapable of supporting your claim.

Perhaps you mean your claim.

An armed fighter jet CANNOT be legally owned by a felon, if you think otherwise then just leave.

[Neo Art]

Perhaps you mean your claim.

"people can own fighter jets!"

"no they can't, unless you're refering only to those that have had all weapon and ordinance systems permanently disabled, which you must be discussing, because this is a gun control discussion, and bringing up the fact that you can, if you go through the paperwork, own a completely and totally disarmed piece of military surplus hardware, is utterly irrelevant to this thread"

"you should read the law!"

"I have read the law. Any ordinance equipped on a modern fighterjet falls within the classification of a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and civilian posession is banned. So either you were discussing civilian ownership of ARMED military hardware, in which case you're wrong, or unarmed hardware, in which case you're completely off the thread topic, which has nothing to do with whether someone can keep an f-16 in a hangar or not. So you're either completely ignorant, or woefully incapable of staying on track"

"oh, so you can't back up your claims huh?"

That's some fucking gold medal debating right there.

[Ifreann]

Perhaps you mean your claim.

An armed fighter jet CANNOT be legally owned by a felon,

You reckon? How about you go support your claim, maybe with the rules and laws around who can buy a fully armed fighter jet?

if you think otherwise then just leave.

Nah, I think I'll hang around.

[Neo Art]

Perhaps you mean your claim.

An armed fighter jet CANNOT be legally owned by a felon, if you think otherwise then just leave.

....holy shit.

[Neo Art]

An armed fighter jet CANNOT be legally owned by a felon,

You reckon? How about you go support your claim, maybe with the rules and laws around who can buy a fully armed fighter jet?

if you think otherwise then just leave.

Nah, I think I'll hang around.

someone is in the early running for gold medal 2013!

[Ifreann]

Perhaps you mean your claim.

"people can own fighter jets!"

"no they can't, unless you're refering only to those that have had all weapon and ordinance systems permanently disabled, which you must be discussing, because this is a gun control discussion, and bringing up the fact that you can, if you go through the paperwork, own a completely and totally disarmed piece of military surplus hardware, is utterly irrelevant to this thread"

"you should read the law!"

"I have read the law. Any ordinance equipped on a modern fighterjet falls within the classification of a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and civilian posession is banned. So either you were discussing civilian ownership of ARMED military hardware, in which case you're wrong, or unarmed hardware, in which case you're completely off the thread topic, which has nothing to do with whether someone can keep an f-16 in a hangar or not. So you're either completely ignorant, or woefully incapable of staying on track"

"oh, so you can't back up your claims huh?"

That's some fucking gold medal debating right there.

He's got my vote when the next Poster's Awards come round.

[Chernoslavia]

Perhaps you mean your claim.

"people can own fighter jets!"

"no they can't, unless you're refering only to those that have had all weapon and ordinance systems permanently disabled, which you must be discussing, because this is a gun control discussion, and bringing up the fact that you can, if you go through the paperwork, own a completely and totally disarmed piece of military surplus hardware, is utterly irrelevant to this thread"

"you should read the law!"

"I have read the law. Any ordinance equipped on a modern fighterjet falls within the classification of a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and civilian posession is banned. So either you were discussing civilian ownership of ARMED military hardware, in which case you're wrong, or unarmed hardware, in which case you're completely off the thread topic, which has nothing to do with whether someone can keep an f-16 in a hangar or not. So you're either completely ignorant, or woefully incapable of staying on track"

"oh, so you can't back up your claims huh?"

That's some fucking gold medal debating right there.

Please read NFA 1934 and GCA 1968 before you further embarrass yourself.

[Neo Art]

He's got my vote when the next Poster's Awards come round.

If he ever discovers the smilie box on the right, we're all fucked.

[Chernoslavia]

"people can own fighter jets!"

"no they can't, unless you're refering only to those that have had all weapon and ordinance systems permanently disabled, which you must be discussing, because this is a gun control discussion, and bringing up the fact that you can, if you go through the paperwork, own a completely and totally disarmed piece of military surplus hardware, is utterly irrelevant to this thread"

"you should read the law!"

"I have read the law. Any ordinance equipped on a modern fighterjet falls within the classification of a "destructive device" under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and civilian posession is banned. So either you were discussing civilian ownership of ARMED military hardware, in which case you're wrong, or unarmed hardware, in which case you're completely off the thread topic, which has nothing to do with whether someone can keep an f-16 in a hangar or not. So you're either completely ignorant, or woefully incapable of staying on track"

"oh, so you can't back up your claims huh?"

That's some fucking gold medal debating right there.

He's got my vote when the next Poster's Awards come round.

His interpretation of the GCA of 1968 is incorrect.

[Conserative Morality]

So its agreed, you are incapable of supporting your claim.

Let's check an F-16's weaponry, eh? Typically it carries either ATG or ATA missiles, which are definitely verboten, along with the rockets it carries. And unless the M61 Vulcan has been in civilian hands since before 1981, you're fucked with that too.

[Ifreann]

He's got my vote when the next Poster's Awards come round.

His interpretation of the GCA of 1968 is incorrect.

Wow, you've just completely changed my opinion with this well-reasoned, fully supported post.

[Chernoslavia]

So its agreed, you are incapable of supporting your claim.

And unless the M61 Vulcan has been in civilian hands since before 1981, you're fucked with that too.

Which is the weapon I was referring to. You also have the date wrong.

[Chernoslavia]

His interpretation of the GCA of 1968 is incorrect.

Wow, you've just completely changed my opinion with this well-reasoned, fully supported post.

Have you even bothered to read the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Now stop embarrassing yourself.

[Neo Art]

And unless the M61 Vulcan has been in civilian hands since before 1981, you're fucked with that too.

Which is the weapon I was referring to. You also have the date wrong.

Oh for fuck's sake. An M61 Vulcan is a sustained fire gattling gun. Automated machine guns that operate by a powered crank are extraordinarily illegal

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Wow, you've just completely changed my opinion with this well-reasoned, fully supported post.

Have you even bothered to read the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Now stop embarrassing yourself.

Welp guys, a Wikipedia link with no explanation other than a sarcastic remark. He's really mastered NSG debating.

[Neo Art]

Wow, you've just completely changed my opinion with this well-reasoned, fully supported post.

Have you even bothered to read the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Now stop embarrassing yourself.

Hey guys, how long do you think it'll take him to realize that a wiki link isn't "the law"?

[Neo Art]

Have you even bothered to read the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Now stop embarrassing yourself.

Welp guys, a Wikipedia link with no explanation other than a sarcastic remark. He's really mastered NSG debating.

He is, and I mean this without a shred of sarcasm, a perfect example of NSG "debating"

[Ifreann]

Wow, you've just completely changed my opinion with this well-reasoned, fully supported post.

Have you even bothered to read the law?

In fact I have not. I don't know the first thing about civilian ownership of military weaponry like the Vulcan cannon or missiles mentioned. That's why I have been asking you to support your own arguments and explain to me what the fuck you're saying. You say I could, if I was rich enough and not a felon, buy a fully equipped F-16 fighter jet. Cool. That's awesome. But I'm not really inclined to take your word for it, so maybe you explain how you came to this conclusion?

[New Panti]

Quick question, what does owning a fighter jet have to do with "Utah sheriffs warning Obama"?

[Ifreann]

Quick question, what does owning a fighter jet have to do with "Utah sheriffs warning Obama"?

All threads are now about gun control.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Quick question, what does owning a fighter jet have to do with "Utah sheriffs warning Obama"?

Welcome to NSG!

[New Panti]

Quick question, what does owning a fighter jet have to do with "Utah sheriffs warning Obama"?

Welcome to NSG!

I've been on NS for alot longer than my nation suggests, I've just never really paid too much attention to the forums.