Repeal the NFA and the Hughes amendment

[Excalibur]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

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]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

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]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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.