The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

My "compromise" wish list would include removal of suppressors from the NFA list, and repeal of the Hughes Amendment closure of the NFA registry (re-allowing new manufacture of NFA firearms).
 
Hacker15e said:
My "compromise" wish list would include removal of suppressors from the NFA list, and repeal of the Hughes Amendment closure of the NFA registry (re-allowing new manufacture of NFA firearms).
Click to expand...
Jeebus, don't even get me started on the difference between a "pistol" and "SBR". And silencers are evil, they kill people silently. What bufoonery.
 
milleR said:
Jeebus, don't even get me started on the difference between a "pistol" and "SBR". And silencers are evil, they kill people silently. What bufoonery.
Click to expand...

Suppressors have to be the single most misunderstood firearm item thanks to Hollywood.

Everybody watches TV and goes my god that little dart noise is so quiet when all a suppressed gun really means 99% of the time is you won't have permanent hearing damage if you fire it indoors without ear plugs.

It's right up there with Teflon coated armor piercing bullets or cars exploding when you shoot the gas tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
pete2800 said:
That's a good one, coming from you.

Haha.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Constitution is constantly being interpreted in a variety of ways that you or I may disagree with by individuals.

That is OK. There is a way to handle these interpretations. Taking over land that isn't yours, isn't a good way to handle it.
 
Seggy said:
So you are supporting these EOs?
Click to expand...

I can't say yet without the details, but I don't have any problems with most of what I read about them today.

I am certainly for more manpower and funding for the NICS folks, and it makes sense to make the HIPAA changes required to place mental health info into the NICS, so those are all positive changes as far as I'm concerned.

The reclassifying of who is "in the business" looks to me to make things more complicated and not less, so I'll reserve judgment until the real details are out.

I'm not a fan of the revocation of the ability to have an NFA trust, so I'll reserve judgment there, too, until I see the details.

Directing agencies to perform more research? So long as it is researching to find causes, rather than researching to bolster a pre-determined cause (re: the previously posted CDC director's quote about "building a systematic case that guns are bad"), then I'm for it.

So, it is a stretch to say I "support" them. I'm more agnostic about them, because I seriously doubt their efficacy toward reduction of violent crime committed with the aid of firearms. About half of them seem more like window dressing than anything else.
 
Hacker15e said:
I can't say yet without the details, but I don't have any problems with most of what I read about them today.

I am certainly for more manpower and funding for the NICS folks, and it makes sense to make the HIPAA changes required to place mental health info into the NICS, so those are all positive changes as far as I'm concerned.

The reclassifying of who is "in the business" looks to me to make things more complicated and not less, so I'll reserve judgment until the real details are out.

I'm not a fan of the revocation of the ability to have an NFA trust, so I'll reserve judgment there, too, until I see the details.

Directing agencies to perform more research? So long as it is researching to find causes, rather than researching to bolster a pre-determined cause (re: the previously posted CDC director's quote about "building a systematic case that guns are bad"), then I'm for it.

So, it is a stretch to say I "support" them. I'm more agnostic about them, because I seriously doubt their efficacy toward reduction of violent crime committed with the aid of firearms. About half of them seem more like window dressing than anything else.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

Another way to look at it is, I am hopeful that they are looking to split the different factions surrounding the fire arm business, create infighting, and then that will allow opportunities for gun control advocates to come in with a united front while smaller gun dealers are fighting the larger gun dealers about the terms 'in the business' like you alluded to with the increase in fees that will be going to some of the larger sellers.

Divide and conquer.
 
Acadia said:
Nope, though I also don't see anything in there to get anyone upset about. I still would advocate for universal background checks to cover private sales. That will stop a nut job shooter or terrorist, but it will impact the flow of guns to cities and high crime areas. I think that is the one place where we could make significant gains, and as you said earlier Hacker, doing so would be good reason for getting rid of a bunch of other restrictions on law abiding citizens.

You know who is happy about all of this once again? Dealers. Once again we have a spike in sales because of rumors of bans that were never on the table. I wonder if the industry gives kickbacks to the NRA for getting everyone riled up over nothing (not sure they did that here, but they sure have in the past).
Click to expand...
A good majority of the guns in Camden, PHL etc "fell off" the trucks in shipping. Part of the reason why I pay for standard overnight, and standard overnight is mandated for handguns (buds etc)

Background checks won't fix that... Black market sales will still happen all the time... Now the shop will have to report the gun missing to the atf, who will add it to the List and move on...
 
The fight against 41p has been lengthy. The problem is that the NFA system was replaced. The whole purpose was to prevent criminals and non-whites from purchasing those types of firearms, and the point of the CLEO sign off was because he would be the guy with the local knowledge to make sure you weren't a criminal, and could look to make sure you were white. The NICS check is a far better way of checking someone's background, so what exactly is the purpose of allowing the CLEO's prejudices to restrict people's rights? There's just no argument for keeping the system in place.
 
Seggy said:
Thanks for that.

Another way to look at it is, I am hopeful that they are looking to split the different factions surrounding the fire arm business, create infighting, and then that will allow opportunities for gun control advocates to come in with a united front while smaller gun dealers are fighting the larger gun dealers about the terms 'in the business' like you alluded to with the increase in fees that will be going to some of the larger sellers.

Divide and conquer.
Click to expand...
Divide and conquer what exactly? What is the end goal of this approach? Specifically.
 
milleR said:
Divide and conquer what exactly? What is the end goal of this approach? Specifically.
Click to expand...

Have infighting between the gun owners, small gun dealers, large gun dealers, and other stake holders and then you can push through what you want.

If the President said only Walmart can sell guns and ammunition in this country, after you go through a 3 month waiting period, and go through two weeks of training at the Walmart owned fire arm ranges, need to go back to the Walmart owned fire arm ranges every 6 months for more training and have to pay a fee for a mental evaluation to the Walmart Gun Range Mental Health Clinic, the GOP wouldn't know what to do as the Walmart lobbyists would come out in force telling the GOP while this is a great idea while the NRA lobbyists would come out saying why this is a bad idea. Who would be listened to?
 
Seggy said:
Have infighting between the gun owners, small gun dealers, large gun dealers, and other stake holders and then you can push through what you want.

If the President said only Walmart can sell guns and ammunition in this country, after you go through a 3 month waiting period, and go through two weeks of training at the Walmart owned fire arm ranges, need to go back to the Walmart owned fire arm ranges every 6 months for more training and have to pay a fee for a mental evaluation to the Walmart Gun Range Mental Health Clinic, the GOP wouldn't know what to do as the Walmart lobbyists would come out in force telling the GOP while this is a great idea while the NRA lobbyists would come out saying why this is a bad idea. Who would be listened to?
Click to expand...

Justify everything you just said to have access to the Internet and the free speech it generates.

Go ahead we will wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Seggy said:
I don't follow.
Click to expand...

You just named off a list of requirements required to exercise your second amendment rights.

Justify those same restrictions for free speech. Specifically the Internet which the founding fathers could never have imagined or accounted for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top