chasehav2014
Inactive
Just wondering on what ya'll thought about repealing the full auto firearm ban. I would like to repeal it I believe that we have the right to own that type of firearm.
Last edited:
There is no full auto firearms ban
that is true and I knew that
In my own defense, I have learned, since my first internet connection in '94, to take text I read and 'cypher it word for word as written literally... I am far more often correct in understanding than if I try to assume the person typed differently than they intended...Then why didn't you just say that from the beginning?
How can you discuss what you don't appear to understand?
Actually, I think it is safe to guess that a majority, or nearly so, of Americans have no idea that any full auto can be legally owned by any citizen not forbidden due to their criminal/mental history...because I thought that it would be understood that when you say the ban you mean new firearms.
Repealing the Hughes amendment (let alone the NFA)? I guarantee the opposition would notice.chasep255 said:You could just sneak it in to a bill. The only people who would notice would be those who actually understand the NFA ...
+1; I've written the same thing in other threads whenever someone brings up repealing the Hughes amendment. IMHO the change to the NFA that would have the biggest benefit to actual American shooters and sportsmen (as opposed to COD players and mall ninjas) is to remove suppressors from the registry.I'd like to see the hoops to get a suppressor reduced. They're an over the counter item in a some countries and not at all a problem.
But we're an urban society, and there aren't nearly enough people who would even be touched by this issue to make a difference. I suspect that even the majority of retirees who have moved to more rural environs live nowhere near where anyone hunts.carguychris said:....IMHO the change to the NFA that would have the biggest benefit to actual American shooters and sportsmen (...is to remove suppressors from the registry.
It would also be the easiest to accomplish because one of the strongest favorable arguments is "It Will Make Hunters Quieter", which should garner strong support from rural dwellers who like country peace and quiet... specifically retiring urban boomers...
Originally Posted by aklover_91
Just out of curiosity, would we ever be able to challenge the in common use bit? Considering if it wasn't for artificial limiters put on by NFA and GCA '86, our 'in common use' would be M16's and not AR's.
That's a tough case to make. Even before the registration was closed, NFA weapons weren't that common in the big picture. They would be more common today if the registration was open, to be sure.
NFA challenges are down the road. And I think in the end, there will need to be SOME path to acquiring F/A, even though they may be heavily regulated.
Heavily regulated and banned are two different animals. As far as F/A goes, I think the former may survive but not the latter. A case could be made that we have an effective ban, as F/A is unavailable to anyone but the wealthiest among us, because the supply has been cut off, driving the price out of reach. Of course, that was the intent.
Again, that fight is for another day.
I would add that F/A small arms are in definitively common use worldwide, not just by military but individuals, militias, and paramilitary.
Their ubiquity on the world stage makes them protected, because they are exactly the small arms that would be used by any foreign invader.
The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to inferior arms to repel foreign-born tyranny.
Who are you referring to?I guess the right of the people part you didn't read did you.
That's how the Hughes amendment got passed in the first place.You could just sneak it in to a bill.
"In common use" is something of a litmus test, and unfortunately, the opposition will bring up that exact point.That's a tough case to make. Even before the registration was closed, NFA weapons weren't that common in the big picture.
Actually, it would meet with some resistance because silencers (albeit illegal ones) are frequently the tool of poachers. In many areas, the hunting angle is the last one we'd want to pursue.It would also be the easiest to accomplish because one of the strongest favorable arguments is "It Will Make Hunters Quieter", which should garner strong support from rural dwellers who like country peace and quiet.
Oh, please. In jurisprudence, the right to keep and bear arms is only three years old. Like it or not, that's the reality, and that's what we have to deal with. We can keep fighting an incremental battle in the courts and legislatures, which is working, or we can sputter slogans and achieve nothing.I guess the right of the people part you didn't read did you.