imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Just Guns (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Repeal the NFA and the Hughes amendment (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=2498)

McSwan 02-11-2017 03:43 AM

Repeal the NFA and the Hughes amendment
 
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-nfa

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ghes-amendment

Please sign these petitions.

I know it may seem pointless, but the NFA petition almost has enough signatures, and with the political climate we are in, it has a chance of getting done.


EDIT:
The Hughes Amendment fell short by only 3000 signatures.
Someone posted a second one for us to try again.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...es-amendment-2

AdAstra2009 02-11-2017 05:32 AM

signed

*minimum characters

Mazryonh 02-12-2017 05:22 PM

So the "repeal the NFA" petition already got more than 100,000 signatures, but not the "repeal the Hughes amendment." Suppose only the NFA actually gets repealed. Where would that leave American gun buyers?

Spartan198 02-12-2017 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazryonh (Post 43411)
So the "repeal the NFA" petition already got more than 100,000 signatures, but not the "repeal the Hughes amendment." Suppose only the NFA actually gets repealed. Where would that leave American gun buyers?

Having to settle for semi-automatics? I know this viewpoint isn't a popular one, but I have yet to be given any reasonable or practical civilian need for full-autos and this leads me to believe that Joe Smith who only hunts or goes shooting on the weekends doesn't need one.

This isn't me being against gun ownership, this is me exercising some common sense.

SPEMack618 02-12-2017 11:05 PM

It is the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs.

Yournamehere 02-13-2017 04:34 AM

Signed the Hughes one but I had already signed for the NFA one (still waiting on my damn stamps to clear from June...).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43412)
Having to settle for semi-automatics? I know this viewpoint isn't a popular one, but I have yet to be given any reasonable or practical civilian need for full-autos and this leads me to believe that Joe Smith who only hunts or goes shooting on the weekends doesn't need one.

This isn't me being against gun ownership, this is me exercising some common sense.

Without resorting to oft repeated platitudes such as "it's not the bill of needs" or something to that effect, I must disagree with restriction based in presumptuous reasoning similar to what you are stating. Addressing your specific comments, it is dangerous to assume that all restriction should be based in the protection of sporting usage of firearms. This is exactly the train of thought that has been utilized for the last 30 (if not the last 100) years that has led to the erosion of our rights as Americans to keep and bear arms of our own choosing. There are so many anecdotes and examples of laws on the books that cite the lack of need for X gun or X part for "lawful sporting purpose" that leads to "reasonable regulation", which is not.

Our rights are innate and should not be infringed by the governing body, even marginally as in the case of gun control, unless there is clear, evidenced, overwhelming reason that said restriction will definitely benefit the citizenry for the public good and conserve freedom as a whole. There's very little if any solid proof that the proliferation of full auto weapons would change crime, and even if it would, crime is a multifaceted problem that yields many possible solutions, and there are a lot of other potential solutions for the (steadily declining) violence in this country that will do a lot more to effectively address the problem and a lot less to stifle the rights of the average citizen. The NFA didn't stop rogue gangsters in the 1930s from unloading drums in broad daylight, that was the elimination of prohibition as a criminal act, and the work of the police and the FBI, with the use of high powered semi and fully automatic weapons, go figure.

Furthermore, who is to say that full auto wouldn't change sporting? It would completely alter the way 3 Gun and rifle matches are conducted, and those sporting purposes have increased exponentially over the last few years with the increased interest in firearms and ownership of semi-auto rifles and pistols.

Excalibur 02-13-2017 02:32 PM

I have signed all of these things and emailed my reps, senators and congressman all the time about doing away with bad gun laws. It's best to always remind them who they work for.

funkychinaman 02-13-2017 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43415)
I have signed all of these things and emailed my reps, senators and congressman all the time about doing away with bad gun laws. It's best to always remind them who they work for.

Contacting your congressmen and senators makes more sense than petitioning the White House. The president can't just repeal laws on his own.

Excalibur 02-13-2017 08:29 PM

You can do all you can

SPEMack618 02-14-2017 06:07 PM

Repealing the NFA negates the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment closes the registry established via the NFA. Scrapping the NFA renders the Hughes Amendment mute.

I would like to reiterate the "mindless platitude" that it is the Bill of Rights. I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In doing so I spilt blood and lost friends.

When I refer to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution it is not a meaningless platitude. I'm referring to the central founding document of our Government and nation.

The NFA was a fraudulent act to enable to out of work revenue men to stay employed and keep voting for FDR. It's affect on crime was negligible.

The Hughes Amendment was a blatant attempt by anti-gun democrats to kill the FOPA so they could keep harassing, fining, and seizing assests of motorists passing through states like New Jersey and New York. Read what Colonel Mike Chinn thinks about both the NFA and the Hughes Amendment ant it's affect on national defense.

If I want to buy a fucking M-60, I should be able to. And I don't need a damn reason.

And, frankly, given an AR-15 per man, and a gaggle of my old Army buddies, I could do a lot of fucking damaged before tanks and predators come into play.

Excalibur 02-14-2017 09:47 PM

I had a huge debate against a buddy of mine about justification on owning a grenade launcher or rockets and he is against it. Apparently that's where he draws the line that we shouldn't have, which I strongly disagree but doesn't mean I don't see where he's coming from.

Yournamehere 02-15-2017 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 43418)
Repealing the NFA negates the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment closes the registry established via the NFA. Scrapping the NFA renders the Hughes Amendment mute.

I would like to reiterate the "mindless platitude" that it is the Bill of Rights. I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. In doing so I spilt blood and lost friends.

When I refer to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution it is not a meaningless platitude. I'm referring to the central founding document of our Government and nation.

The NFA was a fraudulent act to enable to out of work revenue men to stay employed and keep voting for FDR. It's affect on crime was negligible.

The Hughes Amendment was a blatant attempt by anti-gun democrats to kill the FOPA so they could keep harassing, fining, and seizing assests of motorists passing through states like New Jersey and New York. Read what Colonel Mike Chinn thinks about both the NFA and the Hughes Amendment ant it's affect on national defense.

If I want to buy a fucking M-60, I should be able to. And I don't need a damn reason.

And, frankly, given an AR-15 per man, and a gaggle of my old Army buddies, I could do a lot of fucking damaged before tanks and predators come into play.

I used "repeated" and not "mindless" as my adjective and I was careful in choosing that when I initially typed it. In fact I don't think the idea that the phrase represents is mindless at all, but I do believe that the phrase is a somewhat overly succinct statement that is exhaustively used as a response to a very complex argument, and I feel that retorting to "need" based arguments requires more explanation. I never intended to insult you or even direct my commentary toward what you said with my post. I actually typed it up while you were posting your message, and made my statement before your post was even visible. It was just a coincidence that we referred to the same phrase for opposite reasons, go figure. Sorry for the confusion and no disrespect intended friend.

If I'm being completely honest, I find it, lets say, "difficult" to rely on a written body of text as a means to direct human actions as we do with the constitution. It leads to a lot of stark interpretations for rules and conduct and you find people using the same written words to the ends of both oppression and liberation. That being said, I think the concept of the document in the first place, and the ideal that our founding fathers had in mind, was to err on the side of liberty and to minimize (perhaps not prohibit but minimize) the regulation of our individual freedoms. Considering this, and what is explicitly written in the Second Amendment, and the interpretations of those words as argued over time and time again, I don't think we should have arbitrary restrictions on certain types of firearms like machine guns under the guise that their circulation would drastically increase the murder rate, when in fact they have always represented a statistical zero in crime. Furthermore, our murder rate has been steadily declining for the last 30 years, with the majority of continued cases being directly related to other factors like the war on drugs or gang related violence which are symptoms to a much larger social issue than the circulation of firearms. Not to mention that laws such as this are easily unobserved and broken by people with both ill intent and ignorance. It's not hard to slap a "pistol" upper on a normal lower at all anymore, but that's a whole other discussion.

I do not approve of Hughes or the NFA and I really really hope we can make them go away. And I say that, as a law abiding citizen, on the day I finally get my Form 1 back to convert my first Colt LE6920SOCOM into an SBR, which I submitted for almost 8 months ago, but could have built at any time with a simple order from MidwayUSA. Happy Valentines Day.

Spartan198 02-15-2017 04:25 AM

Maybe we should also do away with speed limits, because if I want to fucking drive 110 through a school zone, I should be allowed to. I have no real need to do so because a 25 MPH limit doesn't actually stop me from getting to my destination, but, hey, if it can be done, we should all be allowed to do it, right? :rolleyes:

Yournamehere 02-15-2017 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43421)
Maybe we should also do away with speed limits, because if I want to fucking drive 110 through a school zone, I should be allowed to. I have no real need to do so because a 25 MPH limit doesn't actually stop me from getting to my destination, but, hey, if it can be done, we should all be allowed to do it, right? :rolleyes:

This is hardly an analogous argument. Speeding is an restriction on using a piece of equipment to its potential for the sake of safety of operation in any given area with any given amount of traffic or pedestrians, not the barring of possession of said piece of equipment. You can own a Ferarri, but you're only permitted to do 15 when you're in a school zone during school hours, and 45 on the road normally, and you risk getting a ticket and eventually losing your rights to drive if you do not comply. The NFA and Hughes Amendment tell us that we can't own said Ferrari, or machine gun, because we are liable to speed all the time, or kill all the time, or perhaps fire machine guns close to other people with the potential to hurt or kill someone with a stray round, whatever you feel is the more analogous action. And just in a personal sense, I have been irritated by a lot of arbitrary speed limits from driving down here for my job or just for traveling at night. I can't count the number of times I've been on empty roads at night with 25MPH limits where I know that physically I can drive faster and still maintain safety for myself and the drivers that would be, but aren't around me, but I still do it because I presume that big brother Johnny Law is right behind a bush in his brand new Charger waiting to give me a ticket to get a little closer to his quota. That annoys me, and it should.

In any case, there's no proof or even logical indication that machine gun availability would change anything. I don't really think that if everyone who owned an AR-15 right now dropped a giggle switch in the thing at this very moment that there would be a monumental spike in crime and death. For one thing, people aren't that crazy, even if the anti gunners want us to think that way. And practically speaking, there isn't correlation in automatic fire being a key factor in determining the death toll in a mass shooting or shooting in general. If that were the case, then North Hollywood would have been a bloodbath and Virginia Tech would have not been the deadliest mass shooting in US history up until the Orlando Nightclub. There are a myriad of circumstances that play into any incident that result in the final casualty toll, from number of assailants, skills and tactics, to motivations and the response of other armed persons to the threat. Changing the weapons used doesn't always slide the scale one way or the other. At the end of the day, however, the regulation definitely, one hundred percent, impedes on the law abiding citizens ability to exercise a facet of their given freedom, when it doesn't necessarily, or perhaps even coincidentally, serve to provide any positive result in exchange for giving up said freedom, and that is not logically sound to me. Moreover, you can still own machine guns and suppressors and all that stuff, you just have to be rich, so in reality it's plutocratic and draconian at the same time, which even further devalues the prohibition of such items in the first place.

And again, just to reiterate, I'm not opposed to a degree of regulation, it just has to make sense, which Hughes and the NFA do not, at least in the sense that they restrict without reason or consistency within their own logic. They really are just arbitrary acts that prohibit or heavily restrict the acquisition of specific spooky items, but are just this side of being a full on ban to not be a black and white definite infringement. The problem, though, is that their requirements are so needlessly stringent and poorly enforced and enacted, even, that they do constitute an infringement, solely because they do definitely limit our freedom for no well conceived legitimate reason, and so they should not be a thing.

Excalibur 02-15-2017 07:20 PM

To be fair, the constitution doesn't actually give us the right to the road. We can drive where ever the state allows us to. If they set up a road block, construction, etc. We can't go there because the road doesn't belong to us. We can own a car but the roads do not belong to us. We don't have a civil right to drive on the roads. We do have a right to own arms.

SPEMack618 02-15-2017 08:51 PM

Sorry, got bent out of shape after misreading something. No ill will intended.

And to be honest, I'm okay if the ATF wants to keep a registry/tax machines guns. Scrap the Hughes Amendment, bump the tax stamp down to like $5, and also keep the finger printing.

All the other junk of the NFA needs to go away concerning SBS, SBR, and AOW. And maybe that way the ATF will worry more about how twice convicted felons in Chicago are getting Hi-Points and P-85s instead of killing farmers and scoutmasters over sawed off shotguns.

Yournamehere 02-15-2017 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 43424)
Sorry, got bent out of shape after misreading something. No ill will intended.

And to be honest, I'm okay if the ATF wants to keep a registry/tax machines guns. Scrap the Hughes Amendment, bump the tax stamp down to like $5, and also keep the finger printing.

All the other junk of the NFA needs to go away concerning SBS, SBR, and AOW. And maybe that way the ATF will worry more about how twice convicted felons in Chicago are getting Hi-Points and P-85s instead of killing farmers and scoutmasters over sawed off shotguns.

I completely concur. I never want to wait another 8 months for a tax stamp again.

S&Wshooter 02-19-2017 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 43424)
I'm okay if the ATF wants to keep a registry/tax machines guns. Scrap the Hughes Amendment, bump the tax stamp down to like $5, and also keep the finger printing.

Give 'em an inch, they'll take 500 square miles, your dog, and your sister's butt virginity

You can't trust the government to not use any infringement you allow them to slowly but surely dismantle your rights

StanTheMan 02-20-2017 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43423)
To be fair, the constitution doesn't actually give us the right to the road. We can drive where ever the state allows us to. If they set up a road block, construction, etc. We can't go there because the road doesn't belong to us. We can own a car but the roads do not belong to us. We don't have a civil right to drive on the roads. We do have a right to own arms.

Indeed. Unlike firearms where there are some you simply cannot buy period, you can practically buy any conveyance from a skateboard to a Scion to a Cessna, but you've no right to their use outside any private property without meeting certain requirements, rules, and regulations as proscribed. And that can be so with little argument against because there really is no particular enumerated constitutional right to driving/flying/skateboarding/etc, let alone that such acts 'shall not be infringed'. Apples and oranges.

And yes, I too agree with the rather simplistic and even crass statement of 'it's the bill of rights, not the bill of needs'. Granted yes it can be argued nobody 'needs' machine guns. Hell it can be argued most people don't 'need' guns at all. Just like nobody 'needs' alcohol, triple chocolate cake, 500+HP cars or swimming pools, yet all of those are out in abundance, available to practically anyone, and almost all of those contribute to killing more people on average every year than guns. Again, though, unlike all those, firearms are enumerated as a supposedly inalienable right. When you start getting into an argument about 'need', I immediately start asking "Why does it have to be a question of 'need'? And even then, who decides said 'needs'?" In regards to the later, for myself, if it ain't me, then frankly, piss off. If I wanted someone else to decide what I 'needed' to that level, I'd be communist. I get the point about reason, but to be blunt, inalienable rights aren't really 'reasonable'. At least not like that.

That said, probably clear by now I'm with SPEMack and Yournamehere pretty much.. I'd say more but YNH got it all and then some. Honestly I'd be happy with just repealing Hughes as that was/is totally arbitrary as fuck, not even any lip service to it actually making a difference unlike the original NFA. Of course very doubtful either has any effect in actuality as illustrated anyway, but still. I don't mind baby steps if they actually step in a better direction. Realistically though I doubt the NFA will go anywhere, Hughes might be a different story. Yet it fell short by 3000 or so signatures. Bah. I get going after the 'big fish' but maybe rather than do so directly, perhaps the better way towards that is by getting all the smaller fish and starving it. That means these other laws and regs, getting in reps at all levels that will support your rights and fight any undue infringements on said rights, and so forth. Real progress takes time.

That said, I'll add that I think BATFE, if not done away with (again, most doubtful) oughta be shrunk down and perhaps rolled into FBI or some other agency.. Meh, I just think they could do with some kind of curtailment - all they've proved over the years is that they're inept cowboys itchin' for action because they can't just sit there and be glorified tax men like they should be. Most alcohol and tobacco taxes are done by state and FBI does the background checks for firearms anyway. All-told I don't see the need to be their own entity in all honesty. At least not how they've operated over the years.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.