Veteran Machine Gun Amnesty Period Gets No Support From Washington Democrats

Veterans are losing their property or being labeled criminals because of an antiquated rule.

Montana --(AmmoLand.com)- Below is an important message from the staff of Montana’s lone congressman, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT).

Denny has sponsored H.R. 442 to allow an amnesty period for registration of prohibited firearms that U.S. veterans have brought home from overseas.

Although there are over 100 cosponsors to this bill, it has not yet been granted a committee hearing.

http://www.ammoland.com/

You know - for hunting purposes

Brilliant.

Still doesn't beat fishin with dynamite

.. first it was stuck on <scritch> "fear of a black president".. then <scritch> "kids can have gunz too".. now this.

Care to put some actual thought into a response, rather than regurgitation?

broken record. Plz try something new

Democrats bad. Republicans good.

Got it.

The bill applies to firearms acquired overseas between June 26th 1934 and October 31st 1968; we're talking about war trophies that are close to being antiques, and definitely have historical value. The bill would also require the Attorney General (read: the ATF) not to destroy a confiscated firearm if there's a museum that wants it.

Yes I've seen numerous "War Trophies" that were legally brought home

Just like the immigration debate - "What part of ILLEGAL do they not understand"

No, they're not illegal, they just require registration which ended in 1986. Now there are some of these old guns in people's closets. Allow them to pay the $200 fee and get them on the books officially, that's all this is.

removed later was common. Plenty out there.

There is nothing inherently wrong with moving to a new geological mass, just like there is nothing inherently wrong with owning an automatic weapon.

Turn your reasoning the other way, or you will quickly become a disgusting authoritarian.

I was suggesting that if we begin arguing that because X is okay to ban, so ought Y, we will lose track of what is actually wrong by defining wrong as prohibited instead of wrong in itself. Suggesting something is wrong because someone says it is, rather than wrong in itself is pretty authoritarian. Authoritarians evoke disgust. Thus it leads to becoming a disgusting authoritarian.

Explain what is unintelligent about that reasoning. I can see how you could come to a different conclusion, but disagreements don't necessarily make one side unintelligent. If you SHOW me how it was unintelligent, I might just concede and change my position.

As it stands, you simply made an ad hominem "argument."