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.
Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
Man i'm sorry, but these threads serve no purpose. The Gun Grabber goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the Citizenry. Some of em won't acknowledge that as the goal, but it is their end-game. It is what it is.
What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
Yeah, i'm just about done with him.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Good to see you've given up on 'assault weapons'.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etc
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Anyone willing to pay for the license can have a machine gun now. Do you have a point?
Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Anyone willing to pay for the license can have a machine gun now. Do you have a point?
Magazine holds over 10 rds.Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Anyone willing to pay for the license can have a machine gun now. Do you have a point?
define a "hi cap semi auto"
Magazine holds over 10 rds.Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?
You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Anyone willing to pay for the license can have a machine gun now. Do you have a point?
define a "hi cap semi auto"
Magazine holds over 10 rds.Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.You are wasting your time with that one. Everyone would have a machine gun if he had his way.
Anyone willing to pay for the license can have a machine gun now. Do you have a point?
define a "hi cap semi auto"
Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.
I'm not giving up, i'm setting a precedent that not all weapons should be legally sold to our citizens. It is a simple premise that people like you refuse to accept or admit to and that baffles me. I don't really care about banning semi-autos... I don't think that is a significant answer to our problems... I do think it makes sense to evaluate and determine which weapons are legal and not legal. I respect that process and support it and find it legal and necessary. I'm sick of the over bloated rhetoric that you all put on the the discussion. That is my whole point.Good to see you've given up on 'assault weapons'.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
All of these -are- sold to citizens. - heck, you can own an M16 SPAA half-track with -4- AA guns if you want.
What defines what is an ordinance or an arm?What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.[
Thanks for the links to the court cases... Are you in agreement with the validity and legality of these rulings?
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etcHow is it determined if a firearm is "common use" or "dangerous and unusual"?
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
Wouldn't mustard gas, nuclear weapons, grenade launchers and anti-aircraft guns be considered ordinance, not arms?
In doing so, you state the obvious.I'm not giving up, i'm setting a precedent that not all weapons should be legally sold to our citizens.Good to see you've given up on 'assault weapons'.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?Agree or not, it is the law.
I suppose you'd look at yearly sales, saturation of market, availability of parts and accessories, coverage by industry publications, etc
The AR15 platform is the most popular, best selling rifle in the US, and so its 'common use" isn't a question.
If it is in common use, it is not unusual.
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
All of these -are- sold to citizens. - heck, you can own an M16 SPAA half-track with -4- AA guns if you want.
And now, thanks to me, you have the established legal framework for doing so.I do think it makes sense to evaluate and determine which weapons are legal and not legal.
Magazine holds over 10 rds.Yes. They are heavily regulated. You can't buy a new manufactured in 2016 machine gun. We need to do the same with hi cap semi autos.Anyone willing to pay for the license can have a machine gun now. Do you have a point?
define a "hi cap semi auto"
Ah, so it's NOT as deadly if it fires less than 10 rounds. An odd definition, but you are proving to be an odd person with very odd beliefs.
We have banned them before so it has been done. Had the Orlando shooter needed to reload often lives would have been saved. I've never heard of a hi cap mag being needed for good, have you?
Good so after this exhausting merry go round we have agreed that certain weapons can and should be banned or regulated by our lawmakers if deemed so under the construct of the legal framework that you presented... Is that correct?In doing so, you state the obvious.I'm not giving up, i'm setting a precedent that not all weapons should be legally sold to our citizens.Good to see you've given up on 'assault weapons'.What about grenade launchers, AK-47's or anti aircraft guns... Do you believe that these should be deemed dangerous or should all of these should be legally sold to citizens?As noted: If a class of firearm is in common use, it is not "unusual".Ok, that is fair... So we have standard to determine "common use" based on sales and market saturation etc... Now, is it fair to say that we should have standards and a process for defining weapons as "dangerous and unusual"?
"Dangerous" refers to a danger outside that inherent to a firearm - this would cover mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc.
All of these -are- sold to citizens. - heck, you can own an M16 SPAA half-track with -4- AA guns if you want.
And now, thanks to me, you have the established legal framework for doing so.I do think it makes sense to evaluate and determine which weapons are legal and not legal.
