Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="de-evoproject" data-source="post: 1287476" data-attributes="member: 14169"><p>Ok i voted yes, but i feel that i should qualify my "yes" and my opinion may rub a few people the wrong way. First i agree with the idea that if a criminal type wants something restricted they will aquire it, the laws mainly only affect the law abiding. I do feel that regulating SBR is unnecessary. I feel that SBS regulations could afford to be significantly softened or removed as well. </p><p></p><p>However, I do NOT have an issue with regulation of silenced and full auto weapons. I know this is what most people would like to be able to get without restriction, but i feel that these are the only 2 (besides the destructive weapons) that actually pose a significant danger even in the possession of a normally law abiding citizen. </p><p></p><p>My reasoning is this, if a law abiding citizen runs into a traumatic period, develops a mental issue or their firearm is aquired by someone close to them for nefarious purposes (i.e. troubled child with plans to shoot up a school, mentally ill family member, close friend or relative with fanatic views, etc) these are the 2 that pose extremely more significant dangers. Also, by regulating them, it restricts lawful users from selling to another individual that may not be quite as law abiding. While SBS and SBR are more concealable, it has been proven time and again that using a full length for committing criminal activities is not that terribly much harder to do. </p><p></p><p>On the other hand a full auto will allow easier and faster expendature of rounds allowing for a higher kill count even with less accuracy and especially in tight quarters. Also, a silencer makes it significantly more difficult to tell the distance and direction of the shooter which prohibits victims from quickly deciding best route and timing for escape and evasion and also extends the amount of time it takes for law enforcement officials to locate and neutralize the threat.</p><p></p><p>I understand everyones desire to own FA and silenced weaponry, but i am glad that there is some form of registration that keeps people accountable for such weapons. At the very least it keeps people accountable for who they end up reselling their weaponry to. Even if the regulation are a bit stricter than necessary IMHO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="de-evoproject, post: 1287476, member: 14169"] Ok i voted yes, but i feel that i should qualify my "yes" and my opinion may rub a few people the wrong way. First i agree with the idea that if a criminal type wants something restricted they will aquire it, the laws mainly only affect the law abiding. I do feel that regulating SBR is unnecessary. I feel that SBS regulations could afford to be significantly softened or removed as well. However, I do NOT have an issue with regulation of silenced and full auto weapons. I know this is what most people would like to be able to get without restriction, but i feel that these are the only 2 (besides the destructive weapons) that actually pose a significant danger even in the possession of a normally law abiding citizen. My reasoning is this, if a law abiding citizen runs into a traumatic period, develops a mental issue or their firearm is aquired by someone close to them for nefarious purposes (i.e. troubled child with plans to shoot up a school, mentally ill family member, close friend or relative with fanatic views, etc) these are the 2 that pose extremely more significant dangers. Also, by regulating them, it restricts lawful users from selling to another individual that may not be quite as law abiding. While SBS and SBR are more concealable, it has been proven time and again that using a full length for committing criminal activities is not that terribly much harder to do. On the other hand a full auto will allow easier and faster expendature of rounds allowing for a higher kill count even with less accuracy and especially in tight quarters. Also, a silencer makes it significantly more difficult to tell the distance and direction of the shooter which prohibits victims from quickly deciding best route and timing for escape and evasion and also extends the amount of time it takes for law enforcement officials to locate and neutralize the threat. I understand everyones desire to own FA and silenced weaponry, but i am glad that there is some form of registration that keeps people accountable for such weapons. At the very least it keeps people accountable for who they end up reselling their weaponry to. Even if the regulation are a bit stricter than necessary IMHO. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom