You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Violence Strategies
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
It seems that every once in a while reporters at CNBC get things right.. or at least on the right track: Linked Article Gun Control Isn't the Answer
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
^^^ I wondered how that could have come from CNBC -- until I got into and realized: "It's all Bush's fault" (The Republicans cut the funding.)
Quote:
I think legalizing machine guns ought to be on this short list.
^^^^^THIS! Get rid of the '86 ban. Oh, and while we are at it, get rid of the '89 import ban too.
You need to stop trying to eat the whole elephant in one bite; that is NOT how the antis have screwed us over the last 50 years.
that is NOT how the antis have screwed us over the last 50 years.
Actually its more like 82 years.
Of course, the NFA 1934 wasn't a gun control law, it was a TAX law. Or so they claimed.
Once upon a time, it was. But it hasn't been that way for a LONG time. Since about 68 I think.
If you think you can get any degree of public support (outside of the FA enthusiasts) for even re-opening the registry (repeal of the Hughes amendment) let alone abolishing the registry, you are living in a dream world.
Free and easy access to machineguns for the general public? While it might be what US citizens had before 1934, in 2016, you'll be a laughing stock for even suggesting it as anything other than a joke.
kilimanjaro
New member
Be careful what you wish for. Opening up the NFA registry would only come with complete firearm registration for all guns, boucoup storage and liability requirements, and psych exams for your entire household. We're not the Swiss.
Opening up the NFA registry would only come with complete firearm registration for all guns, boucoup storage and liability requirements, and psych exams for your entire household.
Don't forget the "inspections" to verify you are in compliance...(no warrant required).
These, and probably more are what the other side would demand, IF they even agreed to the concept.
The other side is not likely to agree to anything we want, unless they think we are giving up more than we are getting.
I do like full auto guns. But I'm NOT going to agree to more restrictions on me and mine, just so YOU can have an affordable full auto. I don't see that as any kind of a fair trade.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Agreed.44_AMP said:I do like full auto guns. But I'm NOT going to agree to more restrictions on me and mine, just so YOU can have an affordable full auto. I don't see that as any kind of a fair trade.
THe usual understanding of "compromise" is that both sides give up something in order to arrive at a mutually-acceptable position. When it comes to gun control, the anti-2A side has no intention of giving up anything, and their notion of compromise is that our side is supposed to give in to whatever their side wants.
The problem is, even if the former happened, the latter wouldn't.But I'm NOT going to agree to more restrictions on me and mine, just so YOU can have an affordable full auto.
Consider this case: gun-control advocates "agree" to take silencers off the registry in exchange for registration of all guns. Then there's a shooting. We're told we have to compromise yet again on something. What about silencers? Not many people own those anyway, and we all know they're the preferred tool of ninja assassins, right? Some spokesperson for a fake pro-hunting group claims nobody needs them for hunting. So let's outlaw them. It's a compromise. If we don't go along with that proposal, they'll try something worse.
Net result? We lose. Twice.
I've been hearing a constant drumbeat of "what if we give the antis X in exchange for Y" the last couple of years. It's naive and dangerous, and it needs to stop.
It doesn't matter who's baby you throw off the sleigh, or how many, the wolves eat them all, and still want more.
It is neither honorable, nor effective to feed the wolves in the hope they will eat you last.
There are only three endgame scenarios. The wolves catch and eat you. You outrun the wolves. Someone shoots the wolves.
You can compromise, all you want. In the end one of those three happens.
Sit down to the table and discuss things with them. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner is democracy.
Not very fair for the sheep, but it is democracy.
It is neither honorable, nor effective to feed the wolves in the hope they will eat you last.
There are only three endgame scenarios. The wolves catch and eat you. You outrun the wolves. Someone shoots the wolves.
You can compromise, all you want. In the end one of those three happens.
Sit down to the table and discuss things with them. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner is democracy.
Not very fair for the sheep, but it is democracy.
44 AMP said:It is neither honorable, nor effective to feed the wolves in the hope they will eat you last.
I completely agree. Even if the tactic were effective, only a POS would through you under the bus like that...
Free and easy access to machineguns for the general public? While it might be what US citizens had before 1934, in 2016, you'll be a laughing stock for even suggesting it as anything other than a joke.
Abolishing the '86 ban would not give anyone "free" access to machine guns - you would still have to pay the $200 stamp tax. Also, it does not give "easy access" to machine guns, as you would still have to get photographed, fingerprinted and undergo an FBI/ATF background check and then wait 6+ months to take delivery. It would actually promote safety in several ways:
1. Rather than continuing to repair an aging registry of transferable machineguns which are now no less than 30 years old, newer ones would be available to own and shoot. At some point the registered MG's will be 50, 100, perhaps even 200+ years old and (provided laws don't change) they will be unsafe to shoot.
2. I speculate that as legal MG's get more expensive, more exclusive and less available, that more illegally manufactured or converted MG's will pop up on the black market - these will be MG's that the government has no way of tracking until they turn up in criminal activity. Making MG's won't completely eliminate this black market, but it will channel efforts and parts into registered MG's instead of black market guns.
3. Bump-fire, binary-triggers, and super-light triggers, i.e. "gimmick devices" become less popular in favor of arguably safer true select-fire guns.
Abolishing the '86 ban would not give anyone "free" access to machine guns
I agree that in reality, that would be correct. However, reality is NOT what would be sold to the American people.
I used "free" meaning unrestricted, and that's the lie I believe the press and the anti gunners would push, and push hard, if you did try to reopen the registry.
They'd tell everyone that ANYONE could just go and buy a machinegun, and that they would be sold at gunshows and on the internet with no background checks, and any other lie they could think of...
Also I think that any change to the legal machinegun market will NOT have an effect on the illegal black market, after all the people buying and selling those guns KNOW they are breaking multiple laws already.
Also I think that any change to the legal machinegun market will NOT have an effect on the illegal black market, after all the people buying and selling those guns KNOW they are breaking multiple laws already.
Gun bans don't work and machine gun bans don't work either. We don't have a total machine gun ban.....yet; but as prices escalate well beyond what they are today, that is the same thing as a ban. When you deny people something they want, a small percentage will find a way to get it anyway.