Utah Sheriffs warn Obama

[Big Jim P]

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

Welcome to NSG!

"We do the thread drift boogie*

[Chernoslavia]

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?

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act and thus didnt have to be manufactured before October 22nd.

[Big Jim P]

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?

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act.

I can own a Vulcan cannon?

Can you imagine trying to pay for 3-6 THOUSAND rounds a minute? A .50 BMG round cost me 3 dollars in 1995. I tremble at just how much money you could blow through with an m-60. A Vulcan would send me to the poorhouse in less that one second.

[Chernoslavia]

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act.

I can own a Vulcan cannon?

Can you imagine trying to pay for 3-6 THOUSAND rounds a minute? A .50 BMG round cost me 3 dollars in 1995. I tremble at just how much money you could blow through with an m-60. A Vulcan would send me to the poorhouse in less that one second.

Unless your FPS Russia

[Farnhamia]

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.

Welcome to NSG!

[Ifreann]

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?

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act and thus didnt have to be manufactured before October 22nd.

So there's no restrictions on these types of weapons at all, except that they be manufactured in the US or registered before 22nd October 1968? None at all?

[Conserative Morality]

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

'86, sorry.

Among other things, federal law:

1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);

2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;

3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;

4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and

6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

The fact remains that you have about zero chance of getting ahold of one of those legally.

[Chernoslavia]

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act and thus didnt have to be manufactured before October 22nd.

So there's no restrictions on these types of weapons at all, except that they be manufactured in the US or registered before 22nd October 1968? None at all?

Well, as of May 1986 the Hughes Amendment (which was passed illegally) states that any fully automatic firearm (yes, this includes an F-16's Vulcan M61) can no longer be registered with BATF for civilian ownership. Like the 1968 law, this does not include full autos that were registered prior to the ban's enactment. Rocket launchers and rockets and munitions of similar type can still be legally owned regardless of date of manufacture and registration.

Does this finally answer your question?

[Republica Newland]

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

All threads are now about gun control.

Are you seriously fucking kidding me? What the fuck do GUNS have to do with ICBMs,fighter jets,tanks???? Other than,well I don't fucking know,NOTHING???

[Chernoslavia]

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

'86, sorry.

Eh, it happens.

Among other things, federal law:

1. requires all machine guns, except antique firearms, not in the U.S. government's possession to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);

2. bars private individuals from transferring or acquiring machine guns except those lawfully possessed and registered before May 19, 1986;

3. requires anyone transferring or manufacturing machine guns to get prior ATF approval and register the firearms;

4. with very limited exceptions, imposes a $200 excise tax whenever a machine gun is transferred;

5. bars interstate transport of machine guns without ATF approval; and

6. imposes harsh penalties for machine gun violations, including imprisonment of up to 10 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for possessing an unregistered machine gun.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

The fact remains that you have about zero chance of getting ahold of one of those legally.

Yes unfortunately. Unless my dad lets me(which he obviously will not) spend all of his fortune on one.

[The Sovietyeto]

If only there was a thing called the Supremacy Clause. Long story short, these men are making an implied terroristic threat, they are lucky Obama doesn't hand them their 'threat' on a silver platter and destroy their sad, sad, little state.

[Farnhamia]

If only there was a thing called the Supremacy Clause. Long story short, these men are making an implied terroristic threat, they are lucky Obama doesn't hand them their 'threat' on a silver platter and destroy their sad, sad, little state.

Well, the US doesn't do that sort of thing internally. If it comes down to it, they'll be arrested by the appropriate Federal agency, the FBI, the ATF, whatever. Maybe even the Utah State Patrol.

[Republica Newland]

If only there was a thing called the Supremacy Clause. Long story short, these men are making an implied terroristic threat, they are lucky Obama doesn't hand them their 'threat' on a silver platter and destroy their sad, sad, little state.

An It Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken-political affiliation supporter's wet dream.

[Chernoslavia]

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act and thus didnt have to be manufactured before October 22nd.

So there's no restrictions on these types of weapons at all, except that they be manufactured in the US or registered before 22nd October 1968? None at all?

Y'know Ifrean, if you dont like it then just stay in Ireland.

[Xsyne]

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

Hey, there are a handful of legal machine guns out there. Maybe one of them is an M61 Vulcan.

Alas, I could not find a list with a cursory Google search. There's only like twelve, you'd think someone would have put a list of all the legal ones out there by now.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

I'm SO tired of 'IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!' being used as an argument. Since when was that a valid argument. Seriously, republicans don't know debating, all they know is childish bickering and name-calling.

[Wikkiwallana]

Perhaps you mean your claim.

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

And now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

[Dyakovo]

I'm SO tired of 'IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!' being used as an argument. Since when was that a valid argument.

Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? Too fucking bad.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

I'm SO tired of 'IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!' being used as an argument. Since when was that a valid argument.

Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

And that's a valid argument how?
That something's already in one way and that it's been that way for a long time, is not a good argument for it being 'right' - or that it shouldn't be changed.

[Grinning Dragon]

Since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

And that's a valid argument how?
That something's already in one way and that it's been that way for a long time, is not a good argument for it being 'right' - or that it shouldn't be changed.

It is a valid argument in that being that all laws must fall within the guidelines of the Constitution. If a law doesn't, then the law gets challenged in the courts and sometimes all the way up to the Supreme Court.

It is a good argument for it being right, and there are provisions to change the Constitution by Amendments or by a Constitutional Convention.

[AiliailiA]

I'm SO tired of 'IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!' being used as an argument. Since when was that a valid argument. Seriously, republicans don't know debating, all they know is childish bickering and name-calling.

The authors of the Constitution did their best to make it simple and plain. Sometimes I wish they'd done the opposite!

[AiliailiA]

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

And now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

It's undeniable though. It would be impossible to keep felons imprisoned if they owned fighter jets. Or even guns.

[Wikkiwallana]

The GCA 1968 only prohibited NFA regulated weapons from being imported into the US for civilian ownership. This does not include ones that were registered with BATF prior to October 22nd 1968. The F-16's armament is manufactured in the US so it wasnt prohibited under the act.

I can own a Vulcan cannon?

Can you imagine trying to pay for 3-6 THOUSAND rounds a minute? A .50 BMG round cost me 3 dollars in 1995. I tremble at just how much money you could blow through with an m-60. A Vulcan would send me to the poorhouse in less that one second.

Reminds me of this one XKCD "What if" about using machine guns as jet packs. It started with a ton of AK-47s, and then, well,

Then we went bigger.
The GAU-8 Avenger fires up to sixty one-pound bullets a second. It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that it’s mounted in a type of plane (the A-10 “Warthog”) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.
To put it another way: If I mounted a GAU-8 on my car, put the car in neutral, and started firing backward from a standstill, I would be breaking the interstate speed limit in less than three seconds.

The best part was the accompanying illustration:


If I had the authority, I would actually consider lifting any and all bans and restrictions on that gun for a one time only permit, say to the Mythbusters, to do that, on the condition that I got to ride in the car.

[Chernoslavia]

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

Please, just stop posting.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

And that's a valid argument how?
That something's already in one way and that it's been that way for a long time, is not a good argument for it being 'right' - or that it shouldn't be changed.

It is a valid argument in that being that all laws must fall within the guidelines of the Constitution.

It is a good argument for it being right, and there are provisions to change the Constitution by Amendments or by a Constitutional Convention.

It's not a good argument for it being right, no. That something is a law is a good argument for it being obeyed and upheld - that something is a law is not a good argument for it being a good law. Bad laws can be changed, and should be, if the only ''argument'' against it is that 'the constitution says so'.