Repeal the NFA and the Hughes amendment

[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.

[Spartan198]

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?

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

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?

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.