I think this settles nra's anti 2nd amendment attitude about full autos

[theinvisibleheart]

small caveat on militia weapons during the colonial days

weren't they also sporting/hunting weapons? So wouldn't weapons applicable for militia/2nd A should cover both if the original interpretation and current case law interpretation had stayed true to original intention? I understand it is not the case.

--John

 

[The Tourist]

we have set in motion a slow-motion ban

We do this with every consumer product.

For example, lots of parts on 1960's muscle cars cannot be made any more (as an exact replacement part) because many processess are no longer environmentally friendly.

Look at how carefully we are around the chrome plating process, or welding around cadmium. I'm not even sure if the paint they used in the 1950/60 era is even made anymore.

So a guy spends tens of thousand of dollars on a Concourse D'Elegance automobile and then scatters an engine...

I don't like the way the government treats firearms owners, either. But to assume that a congressman in 1934 devined the extinction of automatic rifles in the 21st century is quite a stretch.

 

[TNFrank]

Well, to be blunt about it, Miller is WRONG. During the Revolution many "sporting" arms were pressed into service. Fowlers, hunting rifles(Jagers and Long Rifles) along with pistols, both standard bbl and small ones, were all used to fight for out freedom. Arms also goes far beyone just firearms, it includes swords, pikes, daggers, ect. Bottom line, I was born with the Freedom to use any weapon necessary and handy to defend both my person and my liberty from ALL enemies. If our government thinks any differently then THEY become the enemy and should be delt with swiftly.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Just so everyone is on the same page.

It is a flat LIE that NRA "supported" the 1986 machine gun ban.

Anyone who says anything different is completely ignorant of how the events actually transpired.


NRA essentially WROTE the 1986 Firearms Owner's Protection Act.

At the last minute, in floor action that was OUTSIDE of NRA's control, two anti-gun legislators slipped in the language banning new machine guns hoping to serve up a poison pill that would stop the bill and prevent it from becoming law.

Again, NRA had NO part in that activitiy, and in fact did what it could to lobby AGAINST its inclusion.

IIRC, though, from the time it was introduced to the time it was voted into the 1986 proposal was only a few hours, meaning that NRA didn't have much time to act at all.

Is that NRA's fault?

As it finally left Congress and headed to the President, NRA had a couple of options...

Continue to support the bill that had been worked on for literally years while outlawing new machine guns.

Withdraw support for the bill and abandon hope for changing some of the most onerous provisions of the 1968 gun control bill AND abandoning the "peaceful travel" protections for gunowners that were so desperately needed to combat abuses by New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and other states, get rid of the ludicrous record keeping provisions for ammo sales, and a few other nasty little things, while at the same time opening up the surplus firearms market again, which had been largely closed after 1969.

So it came down to a choice of which was most beneficial to the most gunowners in America.

No, the ammended bill that was passed into law wasn't perfect. I, too, wish the machine gun provision hadn't been put into it.

But I'm a lot happier about the other changes that the 1986 FOPA did bring about.


One again, though, claims that NRA supported the 1986 Machine Gun ban are nothing but LIES.

 

[Fremmer]

If our government thinks any differently then THEY become the enemy and should be delt with swiftly.

Well, allrighty then, TN, you go right ahead and deal with the "enemy" government "swiftly." Let us know how you like your new friends in the Pen.

 

[TNFrank]

Glad to see that I have so many Patriots on my side. This is the ENTIRE problem with this country today, NO ONE want's to stand up for their Rights anymore. We should have nipped this in the bud back in '34 but instead we let the government disarm us to the point where we're pretty much helpless against it now. Guess people really do get the government that they deserve.

 

[ForksLaPush]

I pay my dues, and the NRA cares about me personally about this [] much. It is not you, me, or some mythical guy with really fancy over-unders that they care about. It is a lobbying organization for an industry group- a business, but they still do me some trickle-down good. I think SAF is doing a bit more in the interests of the little guy, but I am not aware of any organization whose mission statement is to get a definitive ruling on the 2nd amendment and go out of business.

 

[Al Norris]

Well, to be blunt about it, Miller is WRONG.

I agree.

But it was a Supreme Court ruling and that made it the Law of the Land. We have several options, revolt is not among them. I like the way Kozinski said it:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

We are not at that place yet.

Glad to see that I have so many Patriots on my side. This is the ENTIRE problem with this country today, NO ONE want's to stand up for their Rights anymore.

Standing up for your rights does not necessarily mean armed revolt. If you think it does, perhaps a different discussion board would better suit your needs.

 

[Justme]

we let the government disarm us to the point where we're pretty much helpless against it now.

The general culture of the USA in the 21st century is never going to embrace fully automatic firearms for personal defense or any other generalised ownership and use. The govt has all sorts of very powerful weapons that only unrealistic zealots believe private citizens should have.

Ask yourself, should responsible citizens be allowed to have law rockets and tactical nukes? Using firearms in self defense against our government is a concept that is long past it's usefulness. We have constructed legal and political systems that allow for "peaceful" revolt these days.

 

[tooltimey]

It is a flat LIE that NRA "supported" the 1986 machine gun ban.

Mr Irwin, I am in awe at your ability to rationalize. You say the nra did NOT support the 1986 ban, then you admit that when it was offered as a "poison pill" the nra didn't consider it a "poison pill" at all (i.e. the nra looked the other way). You deceptively make it sound like it all happened so fast that nra was powerless. Hogwash. You are correct however to point out nra's two choices (swallow the poison pill or reject the bill they had worked on) then you go on and on about how the option to swallow the poison pill had more pluses than minuses (which is a total diversion from the point that nra gave de facto support to the 1986 ban because nra has never cared about the 2nd amendment as it pertains to full autos). STICK TO THE POINT MIKE. Just because you happen to like how the nra traded the true meaning of the second amendment (military arms) to get rid of some stupid ammo restrictions does not change the fact that nra gave approval to the 1986 ban. See I think you know all this though. You sound like you have practiced your rationalizations many times.

Your post didn't even come close to refuting the FACT that nra gave approval to the 1986 ban. You simply altered the subject, you polished a rotten apple, and made it sound like it was a good trade off :barf:

Your use of the "poison pill" analogy and the fact that nra did not abandon the bill (as they should have) is proof that you KNOW FULL WELL that nra gave approval to the 1986 ban. I think even the anti gunners were shocked at how nra caved in and swallowed a poison pill of compromising our rights away. If the nra had done the right thing and abandoned the poisoned legislation, then nra would have gained the respect of it's members and even a few of the antis. NRA would have still had a strong hand to get rid of the ammo restrictions and to pass the "peaceable journey" protection because those outrages would have continued. I believe that had nra abandoned the poisoned legislation, they could have come back later, after voters had kept pressure on their congress"men," and could have passed the bill WITHOUT the poison. NRA was so quick to shred the 2nd amendment though (via compromise), that they weakly accepted the poisoned legislation as a dog who will eat anything because it is weak. Now there are FEWER gun owners in america, and we may never be rid of the 1986 ban that nra allowed to be tacked onto it's own bill. Just because some of the changes to the law make you "feel" better Mike, does not change the fact that nra looked the other way and allowed the 2nd amendment to be shredded by a gun ban added to it's own bill. A ban on guns that you know full well the nra has never cared about.

 

[Musketeer]

"blah blah blah, the NRA is evil, blah blah blah, GOA is the only defender of the 2A, blah blah blah, the NRA has sold us out, blah blah blah, I don't do anything but post on the internet, complain about the NRA, and point out my own superiority..."

Yep, sounds like the normal NRA bashing threads which have shown up lately.

 

[Thunderhawk88]

TNFrank wrote:
I was born with the Freedom to use any weapon necessary and handy to defend both my person and my liberty from ALL enemies. If our government thinks any differently then THEY become the enemy and should be delt with swiftly.

All righty there TN, when you decide to assault D.C. let us know. I'll bring the popcorn, though it'll be a small bag, cause things won't take long.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will fight within the lagal boundries to change things.

 

[Al Norris]

Nice rant tooltimey.

Now, tell all of us what you would have us do.

That's right. Quit ranting about how bad the NRA is, and tell us explicitly, what we should be doing to change it. What are your proposals?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"then you admit that when it was offered as a "poison pill" the nra didn't consider it a "poison pill" at all (i.e. the nra looked the other way)"

BULL ****.

That is NOT what I said, NOR is it what happened.

Try actually READING what I wrote, and try not to let the flying spittle cloud your view of your computer monitor.

This is EXACTLY what I wrote:

"Again, NRA had NO part in that activitiy, and in fact did what it could to lobby AGAINST its inclusion."

This provision was added as a rider to the bill as a procedural motion at literally the last minute as the measure was heading to a vote by Congress.

As I said, it was passed by both houses before NRA could adequately lobby against its inclusion. You know, Congress sometimes actually does things like pass legislation.

How you managed to contrive/invent that to mean that NRA looked the other way is completely beyond me and it is an absolute LIE to say that that is what happened.

Instead of parroting solely on what waronguns has to say, why don't you get to a library and actually do a little reading of source material, including NRA's publications and the Congressional record, to see what really happened.

The only possible reason I could think you would have for not wanting to do so is that the actual facts might get in the way of your contrived indignation.

 

[brickeyee]

Many people seem to have no knowledge of how Congress works beyond the high school civics level.
There are procedural rules, and 'horse trading' occurs on any issue that is at all divisive.

There are many procedures that have been established by both houses that are not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
Each house is free to adopt its own rules, as long as they do not conflict with the Constitution.
The committee system, joint house-senate conference committees, etc. are the mechanisms used to operate in accordance with the Constitution, but not explicitly defined by it.
There are many ways to delay legislation created by the various house rules.
Simply ammending a bill AFTER the joint conference committee has made it uniform in both houses can stall it till the other house adopts an identical change, or it goes back to the conference committee.

The difficulty in passing a bill is a good thing though.
Can you imagine the havoc if it was any easier?

I had a high school teacher who had just moved to the Washington, DC area who did not understand how the whole system really works.

 

[johnbt]

"Try actually READING what I wrote"

I'm afraid that facts won't change a mind that's firmly made up and determined to argue from conclusions and not from the facts of the matter.

John

 

[44 AMP]

Tooltimey, where were you in 1986?

And do you understand the phrases "sucker punch" and "greatest good for the greatesat number"?

Like it or not, fanciers of full auto weapons are a small minority. And a divided minority at that. While some folks are whining and crying about how persecuted they are because they can't buy new full auto guns for cheap, other FA enthusiasts are keeping quiet, because they want their rare $50,000+ guns to stay rare and valuable!

We got sucker punched in '86. Blindsided, and streamrollered. And the NRA did what they thought best. You may not like it, but it is a done deal. You may note that in more recent legislation, the NRA has withdrawn support and let it die, rather than passing it with a "poison pill" amendment. We do learn, sometimes.

If you weren't in this fight 20+ years ago, I can't see where you have any personal justification for having an axe to grind, about what went on then, just as I can't justify anger at the people who let the 1934 act pass. Regret, sure, but anger at the men who were there, no. They did what they thought was right, at the time. And now it is history. Same in 86. Same in 94. How we got here isn't as important as where we appear to be going, and how we steer from here.

 

[publius42]

Tired of procedural tricks? Ask Congress to pass...

The Sunlight Rule:

(H.RES 63) This proposed rule stipulates that no piece of legislation can be brought before the House of Representatives for a vote unless it has been available to members and staff to read for at least ten days. Any amendments must be available for at least 72 hours before a vote. The Sunlight Rule provides the American people the opportunity to be involved in enforcing congressional rules by allowing citizens to move for censure of any Representative who votes for a bill brought to the floor in violation of this act.

 

[Arabia]

Personally my take is that people who post anti-NRA comments on gun forums are either anti-gun trolls trying to divide and conquer or fringe gun owners who will never understand that the NRA does far more good than harm. Who else has the money and power to actually do something in the fight for RKBA. Its not GOA.

 

[Danzig]

44AMP, You assert that, "fanciers of full auto weapons are a small minority", while I agree with that statement, I submit that this situation is a direct result of the '86 ban. If fully automatic weapons weren't so heavily regulated, and so expensive, then the fanciers of full auto weapons would not be so small a minority.

The bad law in question created the minority.