JPFO Article

When I say that $8000 for an Uzi isn't rich, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I was very poor not too long ago. I've never forgotten my old days, when I was dirt poor and didn't have a lot. What I mean is that I know plenty of people, of normal income, who buy a classic car project, a painting, antiques, etc, for a lot more than $8000. Seems like a small splurge that is within reach.
 
I didn't take it as such Tony, I mean I could go drop the cash on an Uzi right now, but, assuming the girlfriend didn't walk out on me, we'd be eating Ramen for the next month(s).

I find it telling that every time the NFA, or civilian legal machines are discussed, Miller comes to a point.

Such a travesty of juris prudence.
 
Adding more laws won't stop stupidity.

What that "instructor" did in the AZ incident was stupid, plain and simple.

The very idea that additional Legislation will protect everyone from people doing stupid stuff ...... that is just stupid.

Seriously: handing an inexperienced little girl a machinegun, switching it to full auto and basicly saying, "Have at it!" is as stupid as dropping the same girl in the seat of a running dragster and saying, "GO!" ....... common sense would tell you that it isn't a good idea....... but apparently, common sense is not so very common, now that we have all these laws and government programs to protect people from the consequences of their own actions ......
 
Last edited:
There is a pattern on the left of taking isolated or rare but tragic events, reframing them as a trend in order to make laws that target almost everything except the actual anomalies. They seem to have a penchant for casting aside liberty in futile attempts to net a few bottom feeders.
 
They seem to have a penchant for casting aside liberty in futile attempts to net a few bottom feeders.
Click to expand...

Because what we see as liberty they see as (at best) an antiquated notion that no longer has a place in polite society, or (at worst) an actual threat to the health and safety of society.

Personally, I think they are drastically wrong on both those counts, but they don't, and are determined to do what they believe is best for all of us, despite our wants, desires, or those pesky constitutional rights...

False implications, misdirection, definitions to suit the moment, deception up to out right lies, these are the assault weapons in their arsenal, and they use them all with gleeful abandon. As far as I can see, their approach to the subject is "the ends justify the means".
 
Every once in a while I have to snicker a bit. The fact that the antis are all still alive and well to connive, lie and manipulate is prima facie evidence of their paranoid delusions about gun owners. Clearly we are not as dangerous as they say we are.
 
My reaction to this specific shooting:
It was the instructors responsibility for ensuring safety. He, and the other instructors, are responsible for his death and the young girls trauma. The negligence is worthy of a lawsuit and likely a high dollar judgement. Yes, I think the girl's family should sue the instructor and his associates for gross negligence resulting in emotional trauma.

which represents the exact intent of the NFA '34. Price machine guns, and other "gangster" weapons out of the hands of the common man.
Click to expand...
$200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. Quite a barrier to purchase, but only about half what we have now with current prices.

I have long wished to push for re-opening the registry to 22lr firearms, or specifically listed rimfires and such. Calibers that are generally not intimidating as an incremental step. A step that would open a lot of opportunity for enjoyment for many of us. I wouldn't be able to afford feeding a centerfire until a few more increments were passed anyways.
 
$200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. Quite a barrier to purchase, but only about half what we have now with current prices.
Click to expand...

The current prices are based on a finite supply and high demand. That's FOPA of 1986, protecting us civilians from new machineguns .....
 
Last edited:
IMO

The anti-gun crowd that are calling for common sense gun laws are truly not looking for common sense gun laws, it is only a catch phrase, if the truth be known their catch phrase of common sense gun laws means that they want guns completely done away with.
 
$200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. Quite a barrier to purchase, but only about half what we have now with current prices.
Click to expand...

True, but that $200 dollar tax in 1934 was applied to a weapon, that cost $200 at the store. (1921A1 Thompson w/ Cutts Compensator)

That's a 100% tax.
 
The anti-gun crowd that are calling for common sense gun laws are truly not looking for common sense gun laws, it is only a catch phrase,
Click to expand...

It has become that, but even if it had not, their definition and our definition of "common sense" are so far apart that it is meaningless. The people that have no interest in guns are not affected by the most draconian laws in the least bit, so they see no problem in such laws. If they do in fact save one child, all is good. "I've saved one child and it didn't cost me a thing."

Then, on top of that, they don't know anything about guns. 1000 rounds seems like an unnecessary, astronomical number of them. To us it means more economical to buy and good for a month of shooting.

Now, to the real anti's and politicians, it's a propaganda term used to convince the ignorant and uninterested that they are being reasonable and we are not.
 
I have long wished to push for re-opening the registry to 22lr firearms, or specifically listed rimfires and such.
Click to expand...

Forget that. No crumbs. Demand of every pro-gun politician that they sponsor and support a bill to repeal the Hughes amendment.
 
Odds of Hughes amendment being repealed is zero.

There isn't enough money in manufacturing machine guns for the fight to be economically feasible. The NRA, which is secondarily a gun rights organization and primarily a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers, will not lobby for a Hughes fight because there isn't enough money to be made in the manufacture and sale of new machine guns. A Hughes fight would jeopardize the current economic well-being of gun manufacturers, as it may adversely impact public sentiment on gun rights issues, which, for the most part, is currently favorable to manufacturers.
 
Of course to the antis "common sense" gun laws means a ban. When they claim that's not what they want I always ask if they thought Chicago's handgun ban went too far, I have yet to encounter an anti calling for "common sense" gun laws who was opposed to Chicago's handgun ban.
 
The NRA, which is secondarily a gun rights organization and primarily a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers, will not lobby for a Hughes fight because there isn't enough money to be made in the manufacture and sale of new machine guns.
Click to expand...
If you searched for posts with NRA made by me you wouldn't find much praise of the group when it comes to their 2A defense initiatives. Even so, I think the idea that they represent the gun manufacturers is off a bit. First off, NRA isn't primarily a lobbying organization for anyone. Legislative, judicial, and political action are all very small parts of their budget. What money they do spend predominantly comes from individual members and I think they represent them to a reasonable extent. The reason NRA won't touch Hughes amendment is because they have a LOT of members who would not support a repeal. A lot of hunters, trap shooters, cowboy action shooters, etc, etc.

Forget that. No crumbs. Demand of every pro-gun politician that they sponsor and support a bill to repeal the Hughes amendment.
Click to expand...
Except the NRA won't support it so good luck on that. It wouldn't come close to working even if NRA did support. There is too much misinformation about machine guns in circulation. Most don't know one can be legally owned in the US. I have seen incremental gains work very well in Ohio.
 
The NRA, which is secondarily a gun rights organization and primarily a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers
Click to expand...
You do know that's exactly the line the antis use when they want to bash us, right?

It's also inaccurate. The main representative for the gun industry is the NSSF. The NRA is primarily about education and preserving the culture of shooting. They have a political subdivision called the ILA, which actually runs on a smallish budget. NRA dues don't support the ILA; it's funded by individual donations.

[The NRA] will not lobby for a Hughes fight because there isn't enough money to be made in the manufacture and sale of new machine guns.
Click to expand...
No, they won't lobby for it because this isn't the time. The phrase "machine gun" is still the third rail when it comes to rhetoric. It's only been a few years since we got a 5-4 decision from SCOTUS affirming that the 2A protects individual ownership at all. There are too many other variables that need hashing out to get distracted by an initiative that has no real chance of gaining any support in the legislature or courts.
 
Tom Servo said:
It's only been a few years since we got a 5-4 decision from SCOTUS affirming that the 2A protects individual ownership at all.
Click to expand...

Is the U.S. Supreme Court as divided about, for example, the 1st Amendment regarding individual free speech as they are about the 2nd Amendment regarding individual right to bear arms?
 
ATN082268 said:
Is the U.S. Supreme Court as divided about, for example, the 1st Amendment regarding individual free speech as they are about the 2nd Amendment regarding individual right to bear arms?
Click to expand...
Yes, seeing as they were also divided 5-4 in the Citizens United decision.

Which, btw, was purely a 1st Amendment issue and contrary to what people who've never read the ruling claim was not about campaign donations and didn't rule that corporations are people.
 
One of the beauties of the US Constitution is that it was written in (relatively) plain language, not convoluted legalese. I believe this was done intentionally.

Many of us still believe that it means just what it says.

However, here we are, a couple hundred years later, and things have gotten to the point of major legal matters being decided "depending on what the meaning of "is", is..."

The Supreme Court is not infallible. Sometimes, it is not even correct. But under our system, no matter what the decision, only the Supreme Court can over rule the Supreme Court.

So, a 5-4 decision on something that ought to have been 9-0 happens all too often. TO me, this speaks more to the make up of the court than to the issues themselves.

Apparently asking some people to place their work above (or aside) from their personal beliefs is simply just too much. And the fact that those people get on the court is our problem, more than theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top