Vote to repeal the hughes amendment

If the general public has a "freak-out" over weapons that simply look like their military counterparts, how do you think they might react to a bunch of self-identified gun-nuts lobbying to have not just "evil black rifles," but "evil black rifles" that function like their military counterparts.
Consider this memo from the Violence Policy Center in 1998:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons (anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun) can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
The antis are hurting for money and support, but they're still out there. A proposal to reinstate widespread civilian ownership of machine guns would give them a much-needed bit of political capital.

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights.
You gotta do what you think is right. However, 44 AMP is right: we still need to pick our battles carefully, and the Hughes Amendment is not one we can win right now.
 

Really.

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights.

Not really, we can debate among ourselves the wisdom, or lack thereof, of challenging the amendment at this time, or at any time for that matter, ad nauseam. However, at this point, it would not change anything, and could actually contribute to limiting firearm rights even further by creating yet another political battleground for a hot button issue where an authoritative (governmental) agency or entity would have the task of settling it in whatever manner they see fit.

To reference the quote you cited, secret_agent_man, facts are indeed stubborn, they do not go away or change. However, facts can be ignored. Easily, in fact. Ever try to argue with someone so ingrained in their belief system that no matter how many facts you put in front of them, they continue in said beliefs and continue to tell you that you are mistaken despite overwhelming "evidence" to the contrary?
 
abandon this particular argument, particularly in a public forum

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights.

I have to wonder where this comes from, and specifically what you mean, in reference to my statement.

Telling someone that you think their argument is a bad one, and urging them to abandon it, because of that, is hardly an infringment on 1st Amendment right to free speech. It is simply an attempt to explain how I (and I believe, others as well) would view the statment about full auto for home defense, and an attempt to convince you to change your mind about the language used and the message being sent.

No government agency is saying you cannot say what you want (that would be an infringment of your rights), an individual telling you that you should not say those things (and why), is just an expression of their opinion, and infringes on your rights not at all.
 
For machine guns or not it should be repealed under the simple fact it is a violation of law, order, and government. Votes by our represenatives aren't for good sport and laughs. If something doesn't pass it sure as hell doesn't become the law of the land. IMO
 
i'm solidly with 44 AMP on this one. Petitioning the white house on the Hughes amendment could easily backfire near election time in 2012. Face up to reality: No one in congress will propose legislation to eliminate the Hughes amendment. It's not going to happen.

Indulge in exercises of futility all you want to; that's your right. Don't be surprised when anti-gun politicians paint gunowners as far out radicals who wish to carry machine guns for self defense.
 
I'll probably get blasted for this post by some users but here are my thoughts

I would have to say that this is a uphill battle and one that is unlikely to happen. Rather than going after one amendment on one issue, likely with unwanted results. Why not try a different approach that will help put gun owners in a better position all around.

What I mean by this is that there are several things that could be done that would not only help our sport/hobby but also get rid of some of the misnomers that allot of people have.

While taking the hunting course they are sure to point out that hunters make up about 10% of the population (12,600,000 people in PA 929,000 licenses sold so they are close). They also say that anti-gun activists make up another 10% and the 80% in the middle can be swayed either way but are at this point in time neither pro nor con for guns.

Promote license/range use permit purchases - The more of these that are sold the higher our numbers go. Your dad, your friends, your co-workers - All could purchase a license to make our numbers go up and make the government notice this group of the population more. A prime example would be my uncle, he hasn't hunted in probably 15 years and hasn't purchased a hunting license either. This year I asked him to purchase one even though he may not go hunting the $20 spent makes our voice 1 person louder. My father would be another case having not purchased a license in over 10 years. But that's 2 more clicks on making our numbers count.

Another thing said in the digest/manual during the class - Give off a good perception whenever possible. Don't walk into walmart covered in blood from the deer you just killed looking to buy ammo. Some people will take offense to this and make a bee-line straight for the anti-gun camp. Same goes with that kill you just made. Don't have it hanging out the back of your truck with the huge rack as you do 70 down the highway! When taking pictures of your trophy always try to make them as tasteful as possible.

Promote gun ownership the right way - walking around the neighbor hood showing all your neighbors the latest addition to your collection while it may seem like fun is something that may send them anti-gun brady bunch screaming. Conceal the weapon and show it to those who show an interest - but show it in more private non-spectacle manner.

Helping others - While it's a little part - if you see someone at (anyplace with hunting/guns/sporting goods) that needs help. Try to help them if you can. It could be the difference between them becoming frustrated and never being involved in this hobby/sport again (our numbers go down) or them becoming a happy hobbiest who stays on for years to come.

Join the NRA - Join Other local gun groups - Join hunting camps - whatever you can to make your numbers count! Because only by increasing our numbers without increasing the numbers of the Brady bunch/Anti-Gun activists can we come to a point where our voice can be heard. Once our numbers have increased to a substantial part of the population - THEN - we could go after getting things like the Hughes amendment changed.
 
Give off a good perception whenever possible. Don't walk into walmart covered in blood from the deer you just killed looking to buy ammo. Some people will take offense to this and make a bee-line straight for the anti-gun camp. Same goes with that kill you just made. Don't have it hanging out the back of your truck with the huge rack as you do 70 down the highway! When taking pictures of your trophy always try to make them as tasteful as possible.

This is a very good point and one I wont argue with even if I think its being too politically correct.

We as a people have become so insulated from hunting and gathering in the wild that people don’t understand what’s happening behind the scene. Cows and other animals go through basically the same exact process as a deer when butchered. We like to think we live differently than the past but there’s no getting around what it takes to have the food so that we can all live.

Nature is a survival of the fittest fan and in nature killing is how you stay alive because its how you get your calories to keep going. Id live to see a Vegan do a survival show and see how it turns out long term especially in the winter…. But that’s just me…

Anyway I think that everyone should have to butcher a few animals in their lives so they understand that politically correct doesn’t put food on the table were just fooling ourselves with the niceties of a covered deer. Death is required for life, plant death or animal, death is natural... not a crime..
 
44 AMP, you hit the nail on the head: full auto weapons are not suitable for home defense, no matter what.

Granted, the right to own them should not be restricted as it currently is but I also agree with the comments that it is not the right time to push for it.

All too often, when we are seeking what we want, we attempt to "get it all at once." That's why people play the lottery all the time instead of putting money in a savings account every week. More often than not, the best way to succeed is one step at a time, little by little until we've accomplished our goals.

In recent years, we've done a lot to further our gun rights. The Reagan assassination attempt was a huge setback for us as gun owners but since then, we've made a lot of progress. I have little doubt that this will continue.

--Wag--
 
A couple of good points, about being tasteful with trophies, and concealing weapons....however, underlying this is an unconcious admission that the battle, at least in part, is already lost.

Yes, we are a minority,but unlike other minority groups, particularly those defined by racial, ethinic, or even sexual alignment, WE are expected to be ASHAMED of our status. And us acting ashamed is a subtle agreement that guns and hunting are BAD! We don't need to be "in your face" about it, but there's no reason to hide.

Yes, it is prudent to avoid exciting idiots, because when they are aroused, there's no telling what harm they can do, but we are the ones in the legal and the moral right.

NO ONE who does not only eat things that have died of natural causes has ANY moral right to denigrate hunting, nor by extension the tools used for it.

Buzzards, perhaps have that right, but as far as I know, they don't seem to care about the issue.

Back on point, I've said it before, if you want to change the Hughes amendment, the way to do it is to simply put a line in one of the 2,000 page "must pass" bills, saying change line xxxx in law XYZ to read....." or "delete lines a, b, c, & f from...." or something like that. Make no public announcement. Do not try to get political support, just do it with stealth and slip it in under their radar. After all, its what they do to us, every chance they get, on a variety of issues.
 
full auto weapons are not suitable for home defense

Well, maybe if you have an Afghanistan mailing address or there is an uprising of the undead....you know i had to:D

But normally, full auto might be a bit much for day to day HD, and there is as yet absolutely no way to convince anyone otherwise.

There is, for the most part no legitimate reason to have an automatic weapon, other that simply: because I can, because I want to, and because it's fun.

If there are more, lemme know, but none of the above is going to convince anyone to risk their political career tilting at a windmill made of solid granite
 
Gary says, "For twenty years now, I've cherished every morning I've gotten up, because I earned every moment of my life. I fought for it."

Sounds like he has no regrets whatsoever. I wouldn't, in view of what could have gone down. Somebody runs you for 2O miles brandishing guns, they're not trying to carry on a conversation.

And the DA, that grandstanding SOB? I won't go there.
 
Gary Fadden also said this; not exactly a ringing endorsement of NFA weapons for self defense:

Asked what he thinks would have happened if he'd shot Hamilton with a Remington 870 Wingmaster instead, Fadden replies with certainty, "I would have gone home that night. I've told dozens of people since, 'Do not use a Class III weapon for personal defense."' Today, the guns Gary is likely to have in his car have neutral images: an M-1 .30 carbine, and a 10mm Glock 20 pistol.
 
Ask Gary Fadden if using a full auto weapon in self defense is a good idea. He will tell you no. Fadden has been there and done that.

The Bill of Rights makes no requirment that a weapon must be only good at self defense, in fact I dont see a self defense requirement. I know its not going to happen in our time, but I see the 2A saying that all guns, knives and much of the weapontry carried by a common soldier is a right for citizens to own and use and carry.

If the founding fathers wanted specific prohibitions they would have put more language into the amendment, but they didnt.

Im not promoting anyone anywhere breaking a law over this but this is how I see the 2A on this subject. Unfortunatley we are a long way from being able to fully enjoy our civil rights concerning the 2A...
 
Gary Fadden is overreacting to some degree. Sure, he is sensitive to what he endured at the hands of the judicial system, but it is a reasonable assumption he and his girlfriend would almost surely would have been killed or severly hurt that day by the pursuers. Now they are alive, thanks to the presence of a full auto firearm. Fadden's case, had he lost on appeal, would have been a good one to go all the way to SCOTUS on the automatic weapons issue. Facts are facts, and even the Supreme Court must acknowledge their relevancy.
 
Facts are facts, true, but...

Facts are facts, and even the Supreme Court must acknowledge their relevancy.

Facts may be facts, but one true fact is that the courts can do any damn thing the judge pleases, and it becomes law (precedent) until another court over rules it. Even the Supreme Court behaves this way.

Remember at one time the Surpreme court ruled that slaves were property, not people, and had no rights. And that was the law of the land, until overturned.

Now while the system is self limiting, to a degree, it is so because of the opinions of the people in it. IF a court ruled that the sun sets in the east, and the other courts did not challenge it, we would be reprinting all our maps.

Fortunately the court system is not completely full of judges who rule based only on their personal opinions...yet. Lets hope, and work to see it stay that way.
 
If the founding fathers wanted specific prohibitions they would have put more language into the amendment, but they didn't.

They might have, but firearms of the time were single shot smoothbore muzzleloaders that could barely hit a barn at 25 yards.

The constitution was designed to be adaptable to the will of the people, which at this time, is to largely disallow automatic weapons.

Might change, but not soon.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top