Repeal the NFA and the Hughes amendment

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

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 Suppose only the NFA actually gets repealed.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]

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

[Yournamehere]

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

Originally Posted by Spartan198

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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]

You can do all you can

[SPEMack618]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

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.