Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mack59
The real feeling I get reading some of the posts in this thread is that machine guns are to some the pornography of the pro-gun movement. Like the crazy uncle in the attic.
|
I look at it another way. Except for extreme views of gun ownership which espouse; any gun, anywhere, anyone, the vast majority of both gun owning and non-gun owning folks believe there should be some restrictions on gun ownership.
The spectrum is wide in that area. Glenn Meyer, a moderator of TFL has used the term "bright line" however the challenge is where to draw it. I (and many others) draw the line at Full Auto and "above" for heavier regulation than other types of firearms. I am a gun owner, NRA Life Member and CCW so I am not anti-gun nor do I believe nobody should own FA. I just think they should be regulated more than other firearms.
The problem with Hughes is that while it has driven up the cost of FA there are not enough people who want to own them to generate the political pressure to throw it out. Prior to Hughes only about 100K owned them legally.
So, FA has fallen to the collector and hobbyist in the minds of most. In fact someone said in another thread that LEO signoff is easier now because only wealthy collectors own them and so the Sherriffs feel less fear about them owning them. I can't say that is a fact but it follows.
Arguments about the militia have no traction and in fact scare folks mostly, self defense doesn't work either since other firearms are available for those purposes, the courts will not help you (see Alan Gura's comments and case law), so what are you left with?
What argument can you make for widerspread FA ownership that will generate enough political pressure to change that law? That IMO is the issue you face if you want Hughes and even the NFA thrown out. Right now, I see no such argument.
Over to you Hank....