Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

379

Should the Gun Control Act of 1968 be repealed? This law:

Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or Public Law 90-618, soon became known as Title I, repealing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and relegating the National Firearms Act of 1934 to Title II. Its stated purpose was “to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence.” To that end, it:

  • Mandated licensing for all importers, manufacturers and dealers of firearms and ammunition involved in interstate or foreign arms commerce, and set license fees for “destructive devices” at $1,000 a year.
  • Prohibited using falsified information to acquire a firearm.
  • Set the general purchase age for handguns and handgun ammunition at 21.
  • Prohibited dealers and manufacturers from selling firearms to indicted or convicted individuals, fugitives from justice, drug addicts and mentally incompetent individuals.
  • Required registration of all firearms with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
  • Prohibited the possession of firearms on which the serial number has been altered, obliterated or removed.
  • Controlled containers, markings and chains of custody for shipped firearms, eliminating mail order delivery to unlicensed individuals.
Should the Gun Control Act of 1968 be repealed? This law: Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or Public Law 90-618, soon became known as Title I, repealing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and relegating the National Firearms Act of 1934 to Title II. Its stated purpose was “to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence.” To that end, it: - Mandated licensing for all importers, manufacturers and dealers of firearms and ammunition involved in interstate or foreign arms commerce, and set license fees for “destructive devices” at $1,000 a year. - Prohibited using falsified information to acquire a firearm. - Set the general purchase age for handguns and handgun ammunition at 21. - Prohibited dealers and manufacturers from selling firearms to indicted or convicted individuals, fugitives from justice, drug addicts and mentally incompetent individuals. - Required registration of all firearms with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. - Prohibited the possession of firearms on which the serial number has been altered, obliterated or removed. - Controlled containers, markings and chains of custody for shipped firearms, eliminating mail order delivery to unlicensed individuals.

(post is archived)

[–] • 15 pts

All gun control laws are unconstitutional.

[–] • 0 pt

Well if Dragon's Breath was legal in Florida where I live, it could burn the whole state down.

[–] • 6 pts

the risk and effectiveness of that round are dramatically over-stated. There's millions of every day things that are far more of a fire risk than some gimmick shotgun shell.

[–] • 3 pts

And yet 5 gallon gas cans are still legal.

[–] • 1 pt

Difference is gas cans can be controlled, Dragons Breath the sparks go everywhere and the ammo is designed to start fires. All that is needed is one moron to shoot that stuff on their property, next thing you know you got a massive forrest fire up in Citrus County or better yet, some moron does it down in Deer Key in the Florida Keys/Monroe Country, whole island goes up in smoke, kills all the endangered Key Deer and now Key Deer go extinct

[–] • 2 pts

it could burn the whole state

So could Molotov cocktails, Zippo lighters, gasoline, and fireworks.

What's your fucking point?

[–] • 0 pt

Point being stuff shouldn't be used. I'll discuss this with the progun people in my arae

[–] • 1 pt

If it were legal to stab you with a knife and I stabbed you in the heart you would die in 2 minutes.

[–] • 0 pt

Legal in my state and it also caused a wild fire.

[–] • 2 pts

No, the operator caused a wildfire.

[–] • 6 pts

Yes, so should the NFA.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

And of course the 1986 Hughes Amendment, which prevents new machine guns from entering civilian hands post 86.

[–] • 1 pt

This one is the worst. It's an outright ban on machine guns. And if you state it as such the fuds will come out in force telling you machine guns aren't banned. But they are. An antique subset of exempt pre-1986 machine guns does not negate the ban. The people are the militia. Yet no militia in the world is restricted to antique firearms. And every militia in the world (sans the people of the United States) has a standard select fire rifle in the hands of every infantryman.

[–] • 0 pt

I thought the NFA expired?

[–] • 4 pts

Nope, otherwise I'd have a full suppressed full auto SBR and or a suppressed full auto PDW.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

You're thinking 1994 AWB. The NFA is permanent. The AWB had a sunset clause as a compromise to get it passed. It expired 10 years after becoming law.

[–] • 0 pt

Thank you for this information, I never knew this

[–] • 4 pts

Obviously. What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?

[–] • -2 pt

There's some that were needed like banning Dragon's Breath in Florida for example

[–] • 0 pt

What does that have to do with all the points you hilighted from the Gun Control Act?

[–] • -2 pt

I'm just pointing out an example of certain gun regs that are needed

[–] • 3 pts

Every law pertaining to arms, save for the 2nd Amendment itsself, MUST be repealed.

[–] • 0 pt

Couldn't agree more. The only gun reg needed is in Florida and a few other states banning Dragon's Breath cause that stuff can literally burn the whole state down

[–] • 0 pt

No, that's ridiculous. Shall not be infringed. It's already illegal to negligently start wildfires, you don't need to single out a gimmicky shotgun shell that's nowhere near as effective as you believe it to be.

[–] • 0 pt

I'll talk to some of the progun people in my area and get some feedback. This is worth some serious discussion

[–] • 3 pts

Yes, yes again

[–] • 2 pts

All gun cuntrol is unconstitutional.

[–] • 1 pt

There has never been a law against an 'object' that has actually worked. The stupidity of Prohibition is repeated on every 'gun control' law attempted when all it would take is The law that mandates public hanging for felons who commit a crime with a firearm with No plea deals. A 'firearm' has never committed an act of violence and pretending gun control will work is either moronic or pure Communism.

[–] • 1 pt

You know that's a great point. I never compared gun control to Prohibition. Thank you for your comment. Are you from Florida?

[–] • 1 pt

Yes. It's unconstitutional.

[–] • 1 pt

Heavens no! Think of the problems we would have if criminals could get guns!