TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:01 pmAccording to Chipman here's a photo of my "assault rifle". It's even made by Armalite so it's an official AR.

Now I am confused. Does the fact that it is an AR-7 make it half as bad as the AR-15? Or does it make it twice as bad because it is so concealable when disassembled?

On the other hand, I do like the stock on yours. That is a good looking example of those rifles. Mine were always just the evil plain black ones. Fun to plink with though, and actually pretty good at what they were designed for - an emergency survival rifle.

madwildcat wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:24 pm

eyedoc wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:23 am

As a compromise, I would pay 200 and register it if I could drill the 3rd hole and have the rock and roll setting on the selector.

I love the "Its just a background check and prints" to get an NFA item. If it was "just" that, why does it take months (and even years) to "just" do. Also, I was unaware that there are "millions" of firearms on the NFA registry. I could believe that with silencers, maybe we could get to the number, but otherwise, it seems kind of high.

Also, I agree with eyedoc, if you want to treat it like a machinegun, I am happy to pay and make it one

I think there is a reason he is pushing the treat it like a machine gun. That registry has been closed since 1986 and no new firearms can be added to it. Does that give a hint of their plans?

I have no respect for anyone who would propose to violate the US Constitution. In many cases, I will agree that the Constitution is vague enough to allow for proposals I disagree with.

But I have yet to meet an anti-gun activist who can answer this one question satisfactorily:

Regardless of how I feel about your proposal working to stop crime or make anyone safer, the US Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Webster's dictionary defines infringe as to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. It also lists as an obsolete definition that it meant to frustrate or defeat. Since I do not like to use the word or phrase I am defining in the definition, we can take either of the obsolete definitions. Can you explain how your proposal is not an attempt to frustrate or defeat the rights of a citizen to keep and bear arms?

The most common answer is that no right is absolute, which I agree and disagree with and can show them why this right is as absolute as it gets. I also get that something like registration is not an infringement because it isn't stopping them from doing it. That is also easily answered as yes, it is because it stops him from his right if he does not register.

If they were honest, all it takes is to admit they want to change the Constitution. Short of that, they are all liars trying to control people.