Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I did not say they were non-existent, did I? Why are you making up lies about my statements? Please refrain from making up bull-shit lies about what I have said.AR-15s don't apply to the tax stamp process. AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles. You don't seem to understand. The tax stamp process for machine guns made it illegal for new ones to be built for public sale. You can only buy machine guns that were built prior to the start of the tax stamp process.Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything. Your moving the goal posts to the planet pluto does not coincide with the plain fact that the current tax stamp process for machine guns has reduced, considerably, the number of machine guns that are used in criminal activities. Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution. I merely have to point to the fact that it's a process that has been around for SOME SIXTY YEARS OR SO NOW with out being removed as unconstitutional. If you didn't like it you should have thrown it out as unconstitutional.I did.Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.
Nothing you have stated has refuted the fact that we already have this process for machine guns and silencers and that it can be in fact expanded to cover any other number of types of scary guns and scary accessories.
there are over 1 million AR-15s in private hands and they are sold at almost every gun store....yet, they are rarely used in crime.....tax stamps don't keep people from using "machine" guns, they just aren't used because they aren't practical for the criminal activities American criminals occupy themselves,with.......
Assault rifles are against the law in Mexico...and the drug cartels have complete,access to them......so again..tax stamps would do nothing to stop criminals from getting the guns they wanted.....
No, you don't get it. You are saying that the tax stamp limited machine guns and therefore criminal use of machine guns is non existent...you are wrong. I pointed out that AR-15s are easily accessible, and more effective than machine guns and yet they are still not used by our criminals....The tax stamp had nothing to do with how rare machine guns are in crime. they are simply not a convenient tool for crime, and they don't need them. You can put a tax stamp on pistols all day long and criminals will get them easily.
Incorrect. Please play again.No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1.So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.I did.Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.^^^
Lie.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.
You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny
And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.
Incorrect.AR-15s don't apply to the tax stamp process. AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles. You don't seem to understand. The tax stamp process for machine guns made it illegal for new ones to be built for public sale. You can only buy machine guns that were built prior to the start of the tax stamp process.
Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
I quoted your statement. You may correct your statement, by restating it, or explain the corpus of BS that you think it means. But I'm explaining to you very basic facts about English, and I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong my use of English. Please explain why you think destroying two guns does not prevent criminals from getting those two guns that we destroyed.Incorrect. Please play again.No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1.So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.I did.Then address the points I made. Or change your tune.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.
You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny
And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.
That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun. This is a basic fact. To deny this basic fact is beyond ludicrous. That you don't understand a thing can't be used after it no longer exists, well that just makes you look really silly.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Still not seeing anything worth responding to here.I quoted your statement. You may correct your statement, by restating it, or explain the corpus of BS that you think it means. But I'm explaining to you very basic facts about English, and I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong my use of English. Please explain why you think destroying two guns does not prevent criminals from getting those two guns that we destroyed.Incorrect. Please play again.No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1.So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.I did.
In detail.
None of them prevent criminals from getting guns.
You have not shown how any of them do not violate the constitution.
You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny
And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.
This has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Pull your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes then try to read it again. What part of the fact that a thing that does not exist can't be used, is confusing you so much?Still not seeing anything worth responding to here.I quoted your statement. You may correct your statement, by restating it, or explain the corpus of BS that you think it means. But I'm explaining to you very basic facts about English, and I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong my use of English. Please explain why you think destroying two guns does not prevent criminals from getting those two guns that we destroyed.Incorrect. Please play again.No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1.So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.Nothing can absolutely prevent anyone from doing everything.
You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.Further I don't have to show that this process does not violate the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny
And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.
Please try again.
This has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
They do. There are a great many out there and they are available for purchase for anyone that can legally buy a gun.Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACTThis has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
There part where you think you can parse the OP to make a point.Pull your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes then try to read it again. What part of the fact that a thing that does not exist can't be used, is confusing you so much?Still not seeing anything worth responding to here.I quoted your statement. You may correct your statement, by restating it, or explain the corpus of BS that you think it means. But I'm explaining to you very basic facts about English, and I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong my use of English. Please explain why you think destroying two guns does not prevent criminals from getting those two guns that we destroyed.Incorrect. Please play again.No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1.So, you admit your suggestions do not meet condition #1. Thank you.
You want to restrict the right to arms, a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.
Legally and conceptually, the onus is then on you to show that this restriction does not infringe on the right to arms.
Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny
And so, you have yet to provide a sound response.
Please try again.
Why are you making up bull shit and trying to pass it off as fact? This government does not hand out tax stamps for machine guns to Americans who are known killers. This government will however buy you a machine gun if you are a member of a criminal cartel who is not an American. Get your facts straight, you are embarrassing yourself.They do. There are a great many out there and they are available for purchase for anyone that can legally buy a gun.Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACTThis has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
The fact that you have to pay a transfer tax to buy one does nothing to prevent them from being used in a crime.
Fact.
And so, your point remains unproven.
Pedantry? Your OP statement was full of shit, admit it, and change your OP statement to what you really meant which is how can we stop criminals from flying to the moon and back to get a machine gun from china and then bring it back to the USA illegally.... your OP is complete bullshit. Excuse me for telling you that you have no clothes onThere part where you think you can parse the OP to make a point.Pull your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes then try to read it again. What part of the fact that a thing that does not exist can't be used, is confusing you so much?Still not seeing anything worth responding to here.I quoted your statement. You may correct your statement, by restating it, or explain the corpus of BS that you think it means. But I'm explaining to you very basic facts about English, and I'm not sure why you think I'm wrong my use of English. Please explain why you think destroying two guns does not prevent criminals from getting those two guns that we destroyed.Incorrect. Please play again.No you are having problems again with the English language. #1 states and I quote "(1) prevents criminals from getting guns". Under the rules of grammar, I merely have to prevent two criminals out of 10million from getting two particular guns to show #1.
Please try again.
Its called "pedantry" and it means you know you are desperate to be right even though you know you cannot.
This has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACT
They don't exist for general consumption because of the tax stamp process. FACT
A quick search identifies that since 1934 there have been two deaths associated with the use of machine guns by criminals. Let that sink into your haid. TWO - JUST 2. Do you need to see the number of deaths associated with guns that were not regulated by the tax stamp process? "240,000 fully automatic guns in the US, and only 2 deaths in 80 years" why? Because the tax stamp process turned those fully automatic guns into collectors items rather than tools to be used by criminals. Why use a gun that costs 20k dollars when you can sell it to a collector who will put it in a box on display?
Why are you making up bull shit and trying to pass it off as fact? This government does not hand out tax stamps for machine guns to Americans who are known killers. This government will however buy you a machine gun if you are a member of a criminal cartel who is not an American. Get your facts straight, you are embarrassing yourself.They do. There are a great many out there and they are available for purchase for anyone that can legally buy a gun.Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACTThis has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
The fact that you have to pay a transfer tax to buy one does nothing to prevent them from being used in a crime.
Fact.
And so, your point remains unproven.
You can't get a tax stamp if you are a criminal. And you can't buy new machine guns at the store even if you are not a criminal because it's EFFING ILLEGAL TO SELL NEW MACHINE GUNS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. What part of these VERY SIMPLE FACTS IS GOING OVER YOUR HEAD?
Your statement about ARs is moot. UZIs and other machine pistols are also illegal, are also convenient and concealable.. if cheap and readily available would quickly become a weapon of choice for many types of criminals. To deny this is ludicrious. Additionally, our history was rife with criminals using tommy guns back before they were made illegal. So no only is your AR point moot, it flies in the face of historical facts.This has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.Prove this to be true.The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACT
They don't exist for general consumption because of the tax stamp process. FACT
A quick search identifies that since 1934 there have been two deaths associated with the use of machine guns by criminals. Let that sink into your haid. TWO - JUST 2. Do you need to see the number of deaths associated with guns that were not regulated by the tax stamp process? "240,000 fully automatic guns in the US, and only 2 deaths in 80 years" why? Because the tax stamp process turned those fully automatic guns into collectors items rather than tools to be used by criminals. Why use a gun that costs 20k dollars when you can sell it to a collector who will put it in a box on display?
And over 1 million AR-15s and even they aren't used in crime...why, they aren't convenient or concealable....that is why machine guns, which is a crew served weapon....that means it needs 2 or more individuals to operate it efficiently......
So if AR-15s are so easily acquired, as opposed to machine guns, and they are in almost every gun store in the country...why aren't they used more...especially considering all the media attention they get making them "cool."
If guns were made too expensive to own criminals would switch to bats and knives... so what? It's not about stopping crime, it's about reducing the ability of people to defend themselves in an adequate fashion from government control. The plain fact is you can reduce crimes that are committed with a certain weapon by making that weapon expensive as hell.Why are you making up bull shit and trying to pass it off as fact? This government does not hand out tax stamps for machine guns to Americans who are known killers. This government will however buy you a machine gun if you are a member of a criminal cartel who is not an American. Get your facts straight, you are embarrassing yourself.They do. There are a great many out there and they are available for purchase for anyone that can legally buy a gun.Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACTThis has nothing to do with what you said.That's easy. If I destroy a gun by melting that gun down, remaining metal is no longer a gun.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
The fact that you have to pay a transfer tax to buy one does nothing to prevent them from being used in a crime.
Fact.
And so, your point remains unproven.
You can't get a tax stamp if you are a criminal. And you can't buy new machine guns at the store even if you are not a criminal because it's EFFING ILLEGAL TO SELL NEW MACHINE GUNS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. What part of these VERY SIMPLE FACTS IS GOING OVER YOUR HEAD?
And criminals can't have any guns at all.....and yet they get them and murder 8,454 people...in 2013.......so again, if they wanted machine guns they would get them.
If guns were made too expensive to own criminals would switch to bats and knives... so what? It's not about stopping crime, it's about reducing the ability of people to defend themselves in an adequate fashion from government control. The plain fact is you can reduce crimes that are committed with a certain weapon by making that weapon expensive as hell.Why are you making up bull shit and trying to pass it off as fact? This government does not hand out tax stamps for machine guns to Americans who are known killers. This government will however buy you a machine gun if you are a member of a criminal cartel who is not an American. Get your facts straight, you are embarrassing yourself.They do. There are a great many out there and they are available for purchase for anyone that can legally buy a gun.Machine guns, for all practical intent, don't exist for general consumption. FACTThis has nothing to do with what you said.
Please prove your claim that "The reason machine guns are not used in crimes is because of the tax stamp process."
The fact that you have to pay a transfer tax to buy one does nothing to prevent them from being used in a crime.
Fact.
And so, your point remains unproven.
You can't get a tax stamp if you are a criminal. And you can't buy new machine guns at the store even if you are not a criminal because it's EFFING ILLEGAL TO SELL NEW MACHINE GUNS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. What part of these VERY SIMPLE FACTS IS GOING OVER YOUR HEAD?
And criminals can't have any guns at all.....and yet they get them and murder 8,454 people...in 2013.......so again, if they wanted machine guns they would get them.
You two are missing the point here.
