Repeal the NFA and the Hughes amendment

[McSwan]

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]

signed

*minimum characters

[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 Suppose only the NFA actually gets repealed.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?

[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 Suppose only the NFA actually gets repealed.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.