So where's the gun control debate?
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
you're in Georgia and look how close you were to getting a democrat governor due to that sort of apathy. Vote.
TruthTellers
New member
I know about Miller, it's a case that absolutely should be revisited or reviewed, but I don't know if it can be. How a tax on a right like owning a firearm based on specific features is constitutional makes no sense and, I'm throwing things at the wall here, but I'd have to think that tax alone would invalidate the entire NFA or at least parts of it.
With 5 (maybe 6) conservative justices on the bench now, hopefully something can be done by SCOTUS to do just that because relying on Congress to change the law is wishful thinking. Congress never alters previous laws regarding the 2nd Amendment, they only make new laws restricting it.
FOPA:
The Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.
We gave up new manufactured machine guns for Safe Passage, a Registry Prohibition & FFLs got some breathing room. In order to get back basic rights and appropriate restraint of federal agents/agencies, we gave up a class of firearms to a restricted, high priced, diminishing pool. Seems like a hollow victory there.
The Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.
We gave up new manufactured machine guns for Safe Passage, a Registry Prohibition & FFLs got some breathing room. In order to get back basic rights and appropriate restraint of federal agents/agencies, we gave up a class of firearms to a restricted, high priced, diminishing pool. Seems like a hollow victory there.
TruthTellers
New member
And several states don't obey the safe passage law and the solution that's been told to people has been don't drive to those states.
Such a great trade off.
Such a great trade off.
Tis a sad fact of life that our system of government has a great number of flaws and often they don't work in our favor. Everyone is happy to ignore them when they do benefit us, and whine endlessly when the shoe is on the other foot, (or WE get the other end of the stick 
)
The Hughes Amendment which closed the civilian machinegun registry was added with the intent of it being a poison pill. There was even some sources at the time who said it wasn't added in accordance with proper procedure, but the chairman declared it passed and part of the bill, anyway.
Moot point now, but I believe it.
Since our President lacks the power of line item veto (that many state governors have) signing a bill into law is an all or nothing matter. While you or I might not agree with the decision (particularly NOW with decades of experience with the results) Reagan choose what he felt was the greatest good for the greatest number and signed it into law.
Was it a good thing? Depends on your point of view. If you're someone who wants to own a legal machinegun and can't afford the cost, then you probably don't think so.
If you're someone who gets saved by the FOPA despite everything an anti gun state does trying to convict you, or a dealer who doesn't go to prison for simply making an error writing down a number, then you probably have a different opinion.
Always remember that those of us who want and are or would be full auto enthusiasts are a SMALL portion of the gun owners in this country and most of them have been "taught" that machineguns are bad, and dangerous long ago, and are being "taught" today that semi autos are just as bad...
And, sad but true, because we elect our government, we get what the majority chooses, for good, or ill. The alternatives are worse.
.
)The Hughes Amendment which closed the civilian machinegun registry was added with the intent of it being a poison pill. There was even some sources at the time who said it wasn't added in accordance with proper procedure, but the chairman declared it passed and part of the bill, anyway.
Moot point now, but I believe it.
Since our President lacks the power of line item veto (that many state governors have) signing a bill into law is an all or nothing matter. While you or I might not agree with the decision (particularly NOW with decades of experience with the results) Reagan choose what he felt was the greatest good for the greatest number and signed it into law.
Was it a good thing? Depends on your point of view. If you're someone who wants to own a legal machinegun and can't afford the cost, then you probably don't think so.
If you're someone who gets saved by the FOPA despite everything an anti gun state does trying to convict you, or a dealer who doesn't go to prison for simply making an error writing down a number, then you probably have a different opinion.
Always remember that those of us who want and are or would be full auto enthusiasts are a SMALL portion of the gun owners in this country and most of them have been "taught" that machineguns are bad, and dangerous long ago, and are being "taught" today that semi autos are just as bad...
And, sad but true, because we elect our government, we get what the majority chooses, for good, or ill. The alternatives are worse.
.
The Hearing Protection Act is somebody's hallucination that a suppressor is necessary for hunting.
"...nation could be under draconian rule..." You're already under that. Between The Donald's BS(the guy repeats his lies after being caught lying) and unelected civil servants being allowed to make law by regulation with no elected rep input, you're there now.
Like AMP says, any "debate" about firearms laws would be a "poison pill" for them.
"...and found (somehow) to be Constitutional..." Or found unconstitutional by the US SC like Illinois' firearms laws and promptly ignored by the Illinois politicians.
"...nation could be under draconian rule..." You're already under that. Between The Donald's BS(the guy repeats his lies after being caught lying) and unelected civil servants being allowed to make law by regulation with no elected rep input, you're there now.
Like AMP says, any "debate" about firearms laws would be a "poison pill" for them.
"...and found (somehow) to be Constitutional..." Or found unconstitutional by the US SC like Illinois' firearms laws and promptly ignored by the Illinois politicians.
No, that’s not it at all. The HPA is the reality that suppressors have been used in very few crimes, and reducing noise from firearms is the good neighborly thing to do. Lots of people in rural America have a safe place to shoot on their own property, but often choose not to so as to not be a nuisance to neighbors. Many European countries that allow private ownership of firearms more less unencumbered encourage or require the use of a suppressor instead of regulating it with unneeded paperwork and taxes. And it could actually prevent hearing damage, especially in indoor ranges where double ear pro (inserts and muffs) is really needed to protect hearing. Many indoor shooters do not bother with double ear pro. HPA would be good law, and keeping suppressors at their current status is silly.
The old argument that poachers would not be caught and men could do murder without the sound of the shot giving them away was, and always has been pablum for the feeble minded.
Guns are not the only way, just the only way that makes significant noise. Remove that, and well, then criminals with guns become just as difficult to catch as criminals with knives, axes, and bows & arrows! Oh the horror!!
we shall all be helpless at the mercy of the soundless evil!!
Along with the fact that some of us believe that the NFA 34 was just passed to make work for Treasury agents needing a job after the repeal of Prohibition, is the story about how the original drafts of the NFA included handguns along with machine guns and sawed off guns, and didn't include silencers.
Supposedly someone convinced those pushing the bill that if handguns were included it would just be too much and would never pass, so they removed the handgun provisions and replaced them with regulation of "silencers" instead.
No one living today knows with certainty the real truth and no documents tell us the back room deals and conversations that played politics back then, so who's to say what really happened.
No matter how it came about, the law is what we have to deal with today, no matter if it is not based on logic or valid assumptions.
Also remember that when the law was new, failure to register and pay the fee was a TAX matter, and not a criminal one. That came about decades later...
Guns are not the only way, just the only way that makes significant noise. Remove that, and well, then criminals with guns become just as difficult to catch as criminals with knives, axes, and bows & arrows! Oh the horror!!
we shall all be helpless at the mercy of the soundless evil!!
Along with the fact that some of us believe that the NFA 34 was just passed to make work for Treasury agents needing a job after the repeal of Prohibition, is the story about how the original drafts of the NFA included handguns along with machine guns and sawed off guns, and didn't include silencers.
Supposedly someone convinced those pushing the bill that if handguns were included it would just be too much and would never pass, so they removed the handgun provisions and replaced them with regulation of "silencers" instead.
No one living today knows with certainty the real truth and no documents tell us the back room deals and conversations that played politics back then, so who's to say what really happened.
No matter how it came about, the law is what we have to deal with today, no matter if it is not based on logic or valid assumptions.
Also remember that when the law was new, failure to register and pay the fee was a TAX matter, and not a criminal one. That came about decades later...
HPA is also important for home security. Why do most people own a gun? For home/self protection. If you ever need your gun, it's most likely going to be at home, and shooting indoors is going to be VERY loud. As many people that have CCW, that's just a small number compared to how many have a gun on their nightstand.
The HPA hunting angle seemed weak to me. There's fewer and fewer hunters each year. Besides, hunting deer, it seems that loud noise almost calls them in. Fire a bow and every deer within 30 miles runs the other direction. Shoot at 1 deer with a rifle and I swear, it seems a few minutes later, more deer show up to see what's going on.
The HPA hunting angle seemed weak to me. There's fewer and fewer hunters each year. Besides, hunting deer, it seems that loud noise almost calls them in. Fire a bow and every deer within 30 miles runs the other direction. Shoot at 1 deer with a rifle and I swear, it seems a few minutes later, more deer show up to see what's going on.
Body cams on politicians?? what are you trying to do, shut down the govt??
Even if somehow it became the rule, I think you'd find that vital footage would be "lost" misfiled, kept under review until no longer useful, or simply "too corrupted to obtain useful data".
There's a reason people don't want certain things of the record, and because of that, they will find ways to keep things off the record.
Even if somehow it became the rule, I think you'd find that vital footage would be "lost" misfiled, kept under review until no longer useful, or simply "too corrupted to obtain useful data".
There's a reason people don't want certain things of the record, and because of that, they will find ways to keep things off the record.
Jim Watson
New member
I once suggested to a SWAT that his sniper rifle be fitted with one of those scopes that records the shot. It runs continuously so you have some seconds of action leading up to the shot. Talk about pulling teeth.
One of the problems with bodycams, dash cams and gun camera footage is, even if the entire thing from start to finish and beyond, is on tape, you're only seeing ONE point of view (the camera's).
What the viewer sees isn't the whole picture, and that whole picture may be needed to fully understand what happened.
And, since that footage MIGHT be evidence, neither the prosecution nor the defense is going to just happily give that out to the general public.
And then there's the whole problem with what gets done with said footage BY the public (specifically the news media).
Anyone remember the Rodney King riots??
Anyone remember the press constantly showing "the brutal beating of an innocent" man via 15-20 selected seconds of a minute+ long video?
That did kind of skew the public perception of the actual events...
What the viewer sees isn't the whole picture, and that whole picture may be needed to fully understand what happened.
And, since that footage MIGHT be evidence, neither the prosecution nor the defense is going to just happily give that out to the general public.
And then there's the whole problem with what gets done with said footage BY the public (specifically the news media).
Anyone remember the Rodney King riots??
Anyone remember the press constantly showing "the brutal beating of an innocent" man via 15-20 selected seconds of a minute+ long video?
That did kind of skew the public perception of the actual events...
So Supreme court nominee - Federal judge Amy Barrett - has been known in the past to support removing a federal law against possession and ownership of firearms for people convicted of a felony --- But only for felons convicted of a non violent felony --- Yet she still supports the law that restricts convicted felons from voting.
Now her support for the right to own and possess firearms for felons convicted of a non violent crime might look good on paper --- But does a federal judge have the right to make the determination that the convicted felon has committed a non violent offense?
Now her support for the right to own and possess firearms for felons convicted of a non violent crime might look good on paper --- But does a federal judge have the right to make the determination that the convicted felon has committed a non violent offense?
Veering back on topic the debate topics for Thursday's (10/22/2020) Biden/Trump debate have been announced.
So gun control isn't listed as a topic in this debate either, although as I've pointed out before Biden DOES have a rather lengthy list of gun control measures on his site. (And once again, if you're going there for the first time you'll get a page requesting a contribution to his campaign. Just click on "X continue to joebiden.com" and you'll get to his gun control page.
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
So gun control isn't listed as a topic in this debate either, although as I've pointed out before Biden DOES have a rather lengthy list of gun control measures on his site. (And once again, if you're going there for the first time you'll get a page requesting a contribution to his campaign. Just click on "X continue to joebiden.com" and you'll get to his gun control page.
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
