Re: HR 1263 Adds semiauto rifles and shotguns to NFA 1986
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:55 pm
TAM --- Preach, Brother!
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
Fully semi-auto illegal!
Well, I guess that makes me a hothead.José Shalom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:03 amThe same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.
anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:31 amWell, I guess that makes me a hothead.José Shalom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:03 amThe same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.
Tyrants do not enforce the laws they enact. They send someone else, someone’s son, daughter, father, or mother. Those who would be tasked with enforcing such unconstitutional and unjust laws understand the consequences, at least most do.
Sincerely,
Hothead.
Can I change my screen name?
FWIW, by hotheads, I meant those who think that you’re some kind of coward unless you’re willing to immediately engage in a shooting war and start killing liberals if this law passes. I’m stating that I will not comply with the law if it passes, but neither will I immediately open fire on the first person I see who voted democrat.anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:31 amWell, I guess that makes me a hothead.José Shalom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:03 amThe same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.
Tyrants do not enforce the laws they enact. They send someone else, someone’s son, daughter, father, or mother. Those who would be tasked with enforcing such unconstitutional and unjust laws understand the consequences, at least most do.
Sincerely,
Hothead.
Can I change my screen name?
You understood what I meant, but I can only speak for myself.RicoTX wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:21 pmI agree with gator guy.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:57 amCan someone explain to me what those two statements are supposed to mean in this context? I seriously do not get it.montgomery wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:41 am
Non-compliance is a cowardly act in the absence of performing a patriot act.
Basically I think gator guy means if you already comply with the rules, chances are you will comply in the future regardless of the rules. In other words, you haven't fought back yet regarding 2a restrictions, why would anyone believe differently in the future?
I think what Montgomery is saying is that most people won't put their money (and freedom/life) where their mouth is... basically.
My interpretation.... apologies to both if I missed the mark.
You mean all the people that didn't register their guns in Colorado or turn their magazines in Massachusetts? I think the numbers are way higher for noncompliance than you think.Gator Guy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:51 amYou understood what I meant, but I can only speak for myself.RicoTX wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:21 pmI agree with gator guy.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:57 amCan someone explain to me what those two statements are supposed to mean in this context? I seriously do not get it.montgomery wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:41 am
Non-compliance is a cowardly act in the absence of performing a patriot act.
Basically I think gator guy means if you already comply with the rules, chances are you will comply in the future regardless of the rules. In other words, you haven't fought back yet regarding 2a restrictions, why would anyone believe differently in the future?
I think what Montgomery is saying is that most people won't put their money (and freedom/life) where their mouth is... basically.
My interpretation.... apologies to both if I missed the mark.
A lot of people in a lot of gun forums say they won't comply with a semi-auto ban. I think the percentage of online stalwarts who actually break bad if this passes will be lower than the percentage of people who actually follow through with a new year resolution for long term weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only one way to prove it, and it doesn't involve more talking.
Don't forget how badly Connecticut's little registration-or-else scheme went. Can't remember the percentage that complied, but it was really low compared to what the authorities there thought it would be...and that is an EXTREMELY "blue" state.jason812 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:41 pmYou mean all the people that didn't register their guns in Colorado or turn their magazines in Massachusetts? I think the numbers are way higher for noncompliance than you think.Gator Guy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:51 amYou understood what I meant, but I can only speak for myself.RicoTX wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:21 pmI agree with gator guy.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:57 amCan someone explain to me what those two statements are supposed to mean in this context? I seriously do not get it.montgomery wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:41 am
Non-compliance is a cowardly act in the absence of performing a patriot act.
Basically I think gator guy means if you already comply with the rules, chances are you will comply in the future regardless of the rules. In other words, you haven't fought back yet regarding 2a restrictions, why would anyone believe differently in the future?
I think what Montgomery is saying is that most people won't put their money (and freedom/life) where their mouth is... basically.
My interpretation.... apologies to both if I missed the mark.
A lot of people in a lot of gun forums say they won't comply with a semi-auto ban. I think the percentage of online stalwarts who actually break bad if this passes will be lower than the percentage of people who actually follow through with a new year resolution for long term weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only one way to prove it, and it doesn't involve more talking.