Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?

[de-evoproject]

Compromise - just another word for both sides lose.

Maybe i'm an optimist. I compromise with my girlfriend, family, friends and co-workers all the time, it helps relationships. And in a democracy we have to find something agreeable to majority. If i'm willing to give a little and the guy on the other side will give a little, we both have a better chance of getting more of what we want. Whether you both lose or both win, to me, is all in your mindset. I would see softening of regs as a small win towards a larger goal, where the next guy might see it as an ongoing loss.

I would love to get everything i want all the time, but thats just not how it works.

And as far as the regs NOT being repealed based on someones investments, i don't buy into that one. Keeping, making or removing federal laws and regulations just to keep a small group of individuals investment value and their since of entitlement over the less well off is not what the government regs should be for.

 

[Mr10mm]

And as far as the regs NOT being repealed based on someones investments, i don't buy into that one. Keeping, making or removing federal laws and regulations just to keep a small group of individuals investment value and their since of entitlement over the less well off is not what the government regs should be for.

I was not saying that, I was just asking how many actually owned MG's that voted yes. I did not say I agreed with the laws. I do not think the founding fathers figured in or envisioned organized crime, gangs ect. So i guess we should be able to go buy a belt fed mg with no checks?

 

[vvvvvvv]

So it is kind of a "entitlement".

Nope.

The Second Amendment protects the Right to keep and bear arms as an Immunity of a United States citizen pursuant to Article IV Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

Unfortunately, that Right was usurped when the Supreme Court neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House cases.

Even in McDonald, the majority admitted that Slaughter-House is inherently flawed, but four of the five said that it wasn't worth revisiting. Only one Justice had the balls to do the right thing, and that was Justice Clarence Thomas.

The reason that the Court would not revisit Slaughter-House is because that would take away power from the federal government. By leaving Slaughter-House intact, the Court left all aspects of the Right to keep and bear arms subject to Due Process with the presumption that all restrictions are Constitutional until deemed otherwise by the Supreme Court.

Now, you might ask why Second Amendment groups like the NRA or GOA support the McDonald decision. It's rather simple: they require litigation (or the threat thereof) against the Second Amendment to survive. Heller and McDonald opened up a new market, since virtually any restriction other than the possession of a handgun for self-defense inside your home is wide open.

 

[onearmedman]

I feel nothing for those who lose their investment $$ in the stock market. It's the same as speculating on the price of ABC commodities.
I don't have any use for anything full-auto. I couldn't afford one or feed it even at unmolested-by-the-gvt prices. I could make use of a can or two.
But, just as I voted against the punitive and confiscatory $1 per pack tax on smokes, as a non-smoker, I'm against many laws that suppress our liberty.
That makes these laws "Liberty Suppressors". Can I get one for 7.62x54?

 

[saltydecimator]

Ok i voted yes, but i feel that i should qualify my "yes" and my opinion may rub a few people the wrong way. First i agree with the idea that if a criminal type wants something restricted they will aquire it, the laws mainly only affect the law abiding. I do feel that regulating SBR is unnecessary. I feel that SBS regulations could afford to be significantly softened or removed as well.

However, I do NOT have an issue with regulation of silenced and full auto weapons. I know this is what most people would like to be able to get without restriction, but i feel that these are the only 2 (besides the destructive weapons) that actually pose a significant danger even in the possession of a normally law abiding citizen.

My reasoning is this, if a law abiding citizen runs into a traumatic period, develops a mental issue or their firearm is aquired by someone close to them for nefarious purposes (i.e. troubled child with plans to shoot up a school, mentally ill family member, close friend or relative with fanatic views, etc) these are the 2 that pose extremely more significant dangers. Also, by regulating them, it restricts lawful users from selling to another individual that may not be quite as law abiding. While SBS and SBR are more concealable, it has been proven time and again that using a full length for committing criminal activities is not that terribly much harder to do.

On the other hand a full auto will allow easier and faster expendature of rounds allowing for a higher kill count even with less accuracy and especially in tight quarters. Also, a silencer makes it significantly more difficult to tell the distance and direction of the shooter which prohibits victims from quickly deciding best route and timing for escape and evasion and also extends the amount of time it takes for law enforcement officials to locate and neutralize the threat.

I understand everyones desire to own FA and silenced weaponry, but i am glad that there is some form of registration that keeps people accountable for such weapons. At the very least it keeps people accountable for who they end up reselling their weaponry to. Even if the regulation are a bit stricter than necessary IMHO.

in my opinion, your opinion is very paranoid and theoretical. i am not saying you are wrong, etc, but if we let our fears rule us we would let all our freedoms go ala 1984 or whatever....

2 things that i think are a big deal to consider when thinking about htis subject:

1 $200 was significantly more money in 1934 than it is today.

2 we are all opossed to normal registration of firearms, but not with nfa? chances are, future machinegun owners, or just nfa owners in general, will i would hope, be everybody. so by that token, you have a national registration, becasue the govt knows who owns guns, right?

3 werewolf you are awesome!!!!

4evo, your superiority complex with your training etc is rather annoying. you didnt come out and say it, but not trusting people to have something simply because you dont like the idea is just not correct. if you walk around at a gunshow, and say oh gosh some of htese people are capable of owing guns, its kinda scary. but then you go to sleep at night and think, gosh, 3 million lawfull gun owners (or whatever the number is) killed no one, today good job! you realize that people just like to live out htere little live, without interference by people scared of their shadow. sorry if htat sounds like i am dogging you. people having differing views is what makes this country go round. so keep having your same views, because if we all were the same, how boring would it be? we couldnt be having this discussion right now, thats for sure

5 in my continuance of #4 where training etc makes it ok for someone to have cooler toys, i present the case of the only time a nfa item was used to kill someone. that was the off duty cop with the mac. so this view of "model citizens" only being allowed certain weapons is ridiculous

 

[saltydecimator]

I feel nothing for those who lose their investment $$ in the stock market. It's the same as speculating on the price of ABC commodities.
I don't have any use for anything full-auto. I couldn't afford one or feed it even at unmolested-by-the-gvt prices. I could make use of a can or two.
But, just as I voted against the punitive and confiscatory $1 per pack tax on smokes, as a non-smoker, I'm against many laws that suppress our liberty.
That makes these laws "Liberty Suppressors". Can I get one for 7.62x54?

here is my take on people that have 14k on auto weapons. they dont care!!!!! they have money to spend, and they would love to have the opportunity to buy a select fire scar or a kriss super v!!!!!!!!!

 

[de-evoproject]

I don't have a superiority complex bc of my training. I was asked if i had ever extensively operated or owned fully automatic weapons so i said yes and gave examples.

I don't think that people without the amount of training I have are incapable of owning a weapon. And i don't freak out about everyone but me owning a weapon. There are just alot of irresponsible complacent people in America that should not own weapons. Like the kid in the "What not to do with your dad's AK" thread, or his parents.

I'm not "paranoid". i simply stated that i could actually see the reasoning for SOME restrictions on suppressors and FA's.

I also noted in a later post that i was unclear with exactly where i stood at first and my first choice is actually full repeal so there are no restrictions on any NFA items (except destructive weapons or whatever the correct term is). My initial post and a couple subsequents were about what i would be willing to compromise and why to get as much of the NFA repealed as possible.

With your wording towards me, i kinda get the feeling that you were trolling me in particular and this is a worthless post. However, I'm going to operate under the assumption that you were not TRYING to maliciously insult me or my demeanor for my opinions.

 

[bettingpython]

With the exception of the Hughes amendment the FOPA of 1986 was a good thing. I could care less about a $200 tax stamp for NFA items.

Instead of worrying about repealing the NFA of 1934(really all we do away with is the tax and paerwork time by doing that, FA still would not be reasonable for the every man) let's repeal the Hughes amendment to the 1986 FOPA and allow regisistration of newly manufactured full auto firearms and repeal the the GCA act of 1968. We also need to get an executive order reversed since clinton banned H&K by name while he was in office.

 

[saltydecimator]

I don't have a superiority complex bc of my training. I was asked if i had ever extensively operated or owned fully automatic weapons so i said yes and gave examples.

I don't think that people without the amount of training I have are incapable of owning a weapon. And i don't freak out about everyone but me owning a weapon. There are just alot of irresponsible complacent people in America that should not own weapons. Like the kid in the "What not to do with your dad's AK" thread, or his parents.

I'm not "paranoid". i simply stated that i could actually see the reasoning for SOME restrictions on suppressors and FA's.

I also noted in a later post that i was unclear with exactly where i stood at first and my first choice is actually full repeal so there are no restrictions on any NFA items (except destructive weapons or whatever the correct term is). My initial post and a couple subsequents were about what i would be willing to compromise and why to get as much of the NFA repealed as possible.

With your wording towards me, i kinda get the feeling that you were trolling me in particular and this is a worthless post. However, I'm going to operate under the assumption that you were not TRYING to maliciously insult me or my demeanor for my opinions.

ya i meant no ill will. I just now got thru all the posts in here. I agree with werewolf on the slippery slope concept. Once again, its your opinion and your welcome to it. your first post was what i was thinking about. Noone is dogging you, i think youre bein a lil tad bit defensive

 

[saltydecimator]

duplicate