Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?

[jm838]

NFA needs to go, but does anyone else think that the '86 ban on MG's might need to go first? I find it odd that there is an entire class of weapons that are nearly impossible to own, especially considering that the 2nd Ammendment is all about owning weapons on-par with those of the government. $200 tax is bad, but at least we can go buy new suppressors and such.

Once again, not saying NFA isn't an issue, or that it's okay, just that it wouldn't be my top priority. Plus, it might be easier to persuade the masses to be okay with automatic firearms if there is a background check in place. After we have that, then we can chip away at NFA.

 

[Werewolf]

...I never said that i SUPPORT the current regulations and restrictions. What i was trying to say is i have no problem with having to register silencers and full autos and have a background check to buy them. Sure it won't keep the real bad people from getting them if they want them but it won't make it easier either. And a small $20 dollar processing fee to pay the ATF person on the phone running your check is not unreasonable. Definitely better than a $200 dollar stamp.

Evo,
It isn't the support that people here question. It is the why of that support. Regulation simply doesn't work. It doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't keep drugs out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't keep booze out of the hands of kids and so on and so on and so on.

Regulation is all about control and that is exactly what government is all about at its most fundamental level. CONTROL. And control is the antithesis of freedom.

Is some level of control necessary for a society to function - no rational person could argue otherwise. The real debate is how much control.

The basis of most folks disagreement with you, including me, is just how much control is reasonable not that there should be none.

And reasonable leads us right back to that slippery slope mentioned earlier. Once you're on it its damned difficult to get off of it.

I mean really how intrusive would a simple background check (like you already have to do to buy most firearms) and registration with a nominal processing fee be? You already do the registration and fee with your vehicles right? And we all do a background check to buy guns right?

It's not about intrusive. Its about checks, registration, fees that simply just do not work. All those checks and fees accomplish is to annoy law abiding citizens. The criminals could care less.

Think about all the mass shootings that have occured in the past 20 years or so (mentioned because they are high profile and more often than not lead to shouts demanding more gun control from the sheep, panderers and control freaks among us) . Almost all were done by people who acquired their weapons legally, passed the NICS check etc etc etc. those checks didn't stop them from doing what they did then and neither will they stop them in the future. Lets talk Columbine where the boys did get the guns they used illegally. Put two and two together. Checks or no checks, they still killed a bunch of people. As for the 15,000 or so homicides committed every year with a gun would that number go up without the checks? Beats me but IMO it's doubtful. The criminals who killed using a gun would have gotten the gun anyway. The law abiding that killed with a gun would just have used a different implement (assuming they couldn't pass the check - which is doubtful since they are law abiding). It'd be a wash.

And i have to respectfully disagree about the morality and responsibility issue. If they weren't in place to govern that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. That's what laws do, put in a system to keep people moral and hold them responsible for their actions.

Sure, we need laws to punish those who harm society. But do you really think that the simple posession of a plant used in the privacy of one's own home harms society or that telling a married man and woman that they can't practice oral sex on each other harms society? Should government make it illegal for a married woman to stray or a married man? Most adultery laws are still active and on the books (though rarely enforced). Why should it be illegal in some states to buy and sell things on Sundays (Blue laws) or to sit down with one's friends to enjoy a friendly game of Poker or participate in a sports pool? We could go on and on and on with numerous examples of laws that do nothing more than legislate morality because one group convinced their buddies in the legislature that getting a BJ just isn't right because their wives weren't givin' 'em one every now and then and some other guys wives were. All laws like that do is legislate morality. And in a free society there is no place for laws like that.

Government absolutely should punish people who steal, that harms society. Government should punish people who murder that harms society (almost every single law on the books that covers actions that actually harm society can be categorized as a form of stealing or murder - think about it). There can be no doubt that for a society to function well it must remove from it those members that harm it lest we have anarchy.

Those laws that target behaviors inconsistent with the morals of some group shouldn't be regulated by the government - at least not if that society and its members truly believe in individual responsibility and freedom.

 

[onearmedman]

Keep it civil and debate the real-world pros & cons, just like the marijuana legalization thread...

 

[de-evoproject]

Keep it civil and debate the real-world pros & cons, just like the marijuana legalization thread...

Understood. Basics of my vote are if they repealed all the regulatory measures that would be fine with me, it would make it significantly easier to build my short barrel, suppressed m4 i'm working on. But i also understand where the potential extra threat (or possibly just perceived threat) is in certain weapon modifications and why some accountability measures might be taken. I realize that criminal types can still get a hold of these things even with regs in place, but also understand not wanting to make it easier or more legal for them to get their hands on them.

All in all we have way to strict of regulations and requirements on NFA items, IMHO. I would definitely like to see the regs go away but would be perfectly happy with just more relaxed regs and a less involved and lengthy process and wait time.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Understood. Basics of my vote are if they repealed all the regulatory measures that would be fine with me, it would make it significantly easier to build my short barrel, suppressed m4 i'm working on. But i also understand where the potential extra threat (or possibly just perceived threat) is in certain weapon modifications and why some accountability measures might be taken. I realize that criminal types can still get a hold of these things even with regs in place, but also understand not wanting to make it easier or more legal for them to get their hands on them.

All in all we have way to strict of regulations and requirements on NFA items, IMHO. I would definitely like to see the regs go away but would be perfectly happy with just more relaxed regs and a less involved and lengthy process and wait time.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Mr10mm]

How many of you voted Yes but do not own MG? If you had paid 20 or 30k for a MG i think your vote would be no. Lots of guys have a lot of money tied up in this.

 

[vvvvvvv]

How many of you voted Yes but do not own MG? If you had paid 20 or 30k for a MG i think your vote would be no. Lots of guys have a lot of money tied up in this.

I do not own, but I have played with MG's and suppressors.

Why should those who "have a lot of money tied up in this" vote no? Is it so that a particular activity remains fair because they chose to play under certain circumstances that others could not?

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

How many of you voted Yes but do not own MG? If you had paid 20 or 30k for a MG i think your vote would be no. Lots of guys have a lot of money tied up in this.

I have 2 MG's and I still voted YES.

If a MG owner votes NO simply because they do not want to lose some monetary investment, then I guess they don't have a problem selling their rights away. Pretty sad.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

All in all we have way to strict of regulations and requirements on NFA items, IMHO. I would definitely like to see the regs go away but would be perfectly happy with just more relaxed regs and a less involved and lengthy process and wait time.

Agreed.

 

[Mr10mm]

I do not own, but I have played with MG's and suppressors.

Why should those who "have a lot of money tied up in this" vote no? Is it so that a particular activity remains fair because they chose to play under certain circumstances that others could not?

What certain circumstances could other's not play? If you want big boy toys you have to pay to play! Just saying for lots of people that is/was an investment.