Comments on: Some Limitations http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/ Where There's Snow, There's Firepower Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:24:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Chris http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/#comment-25289 Chris Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:10:35 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3852#comment-25289 i would agree, but it will take someone with some seriously deep pockets to fight this one... i would agree, but it will take someone with some seriously deep pockets to fight this one…

]]> By: Mike M. http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/#comment-25275 Mike M. Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:52:44 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3852#comment-25275 I think we're wide open to an argument that the only reason MGs and SBRs aren't in "common use" is that they've been heavily restricted. If they weren't I know lots of folks who would have purchased a select-fire M-4/M-16 instead of a semi-auto AR-15. My read is that Scalia wasn't about to come right out and say MGs are ok, but he didn't slam the door either. There's an opening for an argument to be made. I think we’re wide open to an argument that the only reason MGs and SBRs aren’t in “common use” is that they’ve been heavily restricted. If they weren’t I know lots of folks who would have purchased a select-fire M-4/M-16 instead of a semi-auto AR-15. My read is that Scalia wasn’t about to come right out and say MGs are ok, but he didn’t slam the door either. There’s an opening for an argument to be made.

]]> By: Mike w. http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/#comment-25269 Mike w. Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:14:33 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3852#comment-25269 "So, this begs the question…are MGs and SBRs “dangerous and unusual weapons” - Well they're only "unusual" BECAUSE of government restriction of them. They would be normal and "in common use" if not for 70+ years of NFA restrictions. “So, this begs the question…are MGs and SBRs “dangerous and unusual weapons”

- Well they’re only “unusual” BECAUSE of government restriction of them. They would be normal and “in common use” if not for 70+ years of NFA restrictions.

]]> By: George http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/#comment-25268 George Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:08:14 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3852#comment-25268 So, this begs the question...are MGs and SBRs "dangerous and unusual weapons" So, this begs the question…are MGs and SBRs “dangerous and unusual weapons”

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/#comment-25264 Ian Argent Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:45:05 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3852#comment-25264 SCOTUS says handguns are neither, however, in this decision. SCOTUS says handguns are neither, however, in this decision.

]]> By: Chris Maynard http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/some-limitations/#comment-25261 Chris Maynard Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:34:51 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3852#comment-25261 unfortunately, my home state considers all firearms to be dangerous and unusual weapons... that worries me unfortunately, my home state considers all firearms to be dangerous and unusual weapons… that worries me

]]>