The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 6, 2014, 04:09 PM   #26
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Every once in a while I have to snicker a bit. The fact that the antis are all still alive and well to connive, lie and manipulate is prima facie evidence of their paranoid delusions about gun owners. Clearly we are not as dangerous as they say we are.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 7, 2014, 10:38 PM   #27
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,846
My reaction to this specific shooting:
It was the instructors responsibility for ensuring safety. He, and the other instructors, are responsible for his death and the young girls trauma. The negligence is worthy of a lawsuit and likely a high dollar judgement. Yes, I think the girl's family should sue the instructor and his associates for gross negligence resulting in emotional trauma.

Quote:
which represents the exact intent of the NFA '34. Price machine guns, and other "gangster" weapons out of the hands of the common man.
$200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. Quite a barrier to purchase, but only about half what we have now with current prices.

I have long wished to push for re-opening the registry to 22lr firearms, or specifically listed rimfires and such. Calibers that are generally not intimidating as an incremental step. A step that would open a lot of opportunity for enjoyment for many of us. I wouldn't be able to afford feeding a centerfire until a few more increments were passed anyways.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old September 8, 2014, 09:10 AM   #28
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,111
Quote:
$200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. Quite a barrier to purchase, but only about half what we have now with current prices.
The current prices are based on a finite supply and high demand. That's FOPA of 1986, protecting us civilians from new machineguns .....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; September 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old September 9, 2014, 04:24 AM   #29
33GURK
Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2014
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 25
IMO

The anti-gun crowd that are calling for common sense gun laws are truly not looking for common sense gun laws, it is only a catch phrase, if the truth be known their catch phrase of common sense gun laws means that they want guns completely done away with.
__________________
NRA Life Member
33GURK is offline  
Old September 9, 2014, 11:13 AM   #30
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,512
Quote:
$200 in 1934 is equal to about $3500 today. Quite a barrier to purchase, but only about half what we have now with current prices.
True, but that $200 dollar tax in 1934 was applied to a weapon, that cost $200 at the store. (1921A1 Thompson w/ Cutts Compensator)

That's a 100% tax.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old September 9, 2014, 01:44 PM   #31
GJSchulze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2013
Location: Western New York
Posts: 323
Quote:
The anti-gun crowd that are calling for common sense gun laws are truly not looking for common sense gun laws, it is only a catch phrase,
It has become that, but even if it had not, their definition and our definition of "common sense" are so far apart that it is meaningless. The people that have no interest in guns are not affected by the most draconian laws in the least bit, so they see no problem in such laws. If they do in fact save one child, all is good. "I've saved one child and it didn't cost me a thing."

Then, on top of that, they don't know anything about guns. 1000 rounds seems like an unnecessary, astronomical number of them. To us it means more economical to buy and good for a month of shooting.

Now, to the real anti's and politicians, it's a propaganda term used to convince the ignorant and uninterested that they are being reasonable and we are not.
GJSchulze is offline  
Old September 9, 2014, 04:29 PM   #32
Unlicensed Dremel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
I have long wished to push for re-opening the registry to 22lr firearms, or specifically listed rimfires and such.
Forget that. No crumbs. Demand of every pro-gun politician that they sponsor and support a bill to repeal the Hughes amendment.
__________________
--Only accurate rifles are interesting, and only *really* accurate rifles are *really* interesting.
--Life is *way* too short to shoot or hunt with ugly plain plastic stocked guns.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old September 9, 2014, 05:35 PM   #33
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 541
Odds of Hughes amendment being repealed is zero.

There isn't enough money in manufacturing machine guns for the fight to be economically feasible. The NRA, which is secondarily a gun rights organization and primarily a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers, will not lobby for a Hughes fight because there isn't enough money to be made in the manufacture and sale of new machine guns. A Hughes fight would jeopardize the current economic well-being of gun manufacturers, as it may adversely impact public sentiment on gun rights issues, which, for the most part, is currently favorable to manufacturers.
__________________
Stop and smell the roses - origin unknown
Machineguntony is offline  
Old September 9, 2014, 05:50 PM   #34
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 312
Of course to the antis "common sense" gun laws means a ban. When they claim that's not what they want I always ask if they thought Chicago's handgun ban went too far, I have yet to encounter an anti calling for "common sense" gun laws who was opposed to Chicago's handgun ban.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 10, 2014, 12:38 AM   #35
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
The NRA, which is secondarily a gun rights organization and primarily a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers, will not lobby for a Hughes fight because there isn't enough money to be made in the manufacture and sale of new machine guns.
If you searched for posts with NRA made by me you wouldn't find much praise of the group when it comes to their 2A defense initiatives. Even so, I think the idea that they represent the gun manufacturers is off a bit. First off, NRA isn't primarily a lobbying organization for anyone. Legislative, judicial, and political action are all very small parts of their budget. What money they do spend predominantly comes from individual members and I think they represent them to a reasonable extent. The reason NRA won't touch Hughes amendment is because they have a LOT of members who would not support a repeal. A lot of hunters, trap shooters, cowboy action shooters, etc, etc.

Quote:
Forget that. No crumbs. Demand of every pro-gun politician that they sponsor and support a bill to repeal the Hughes amendment.
Except the NRA won't support it so good luck on that. It wouldn't come close to working even if NRA did support. There is too much misinformation about machine guns in circulation. Most don't know one can be legally owned in the US. I have seen incremental gains work very well in Ohio.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old September 10, 2014, 01:28 AM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
The NRA, which is secondarily a gun rights organization and primarily a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers
You do know that's exactly the line the antis use when they want to bash us, right?

It's also inaccurate. The main representative for the gun industry is the NSSF. The NRA is primarily about education and preserving the culture of shooting. They have a political subdivision called the ILA, which actually runs on a smallish budget. NRA dues don't support the ILA; it's funded by individual donations.

Quote:
[The NRA] will not lobby for a Hughes fight because there isn't enough money to be made in the manufacture and sale of new machine guns.
No, they won't lobby for it because this isn't the time. The phrase "machine gun" is still the third rail when it comes to rhetoric. It's only been a few years since we got a 5-4 decision from SCOTUS affirming that the 2A protects individual ownership at all. There are too many other variables that need hashing out to get distracted by an initiative that has no real chance of gaining any support in the legislature or courts.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 10, 2014, 03:21 AM   #37
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
It's only been a few years since we got a 5-4 decision from SCOTUS affirming that the 2A protects individual ownership at all.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court as divided about, for example, the 1st Amendment regarding individual free speech as they are about the 2nd Amendment regarding individual right to bear arms?
ATN082268 is offline  
Old September 10, 2014, 07:24 AM   #38
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN082268
Is the U.S. Supreme Court as divided about, for example, the 1st Amendment regarding individual free speech as they are about the 2nd Amendment regarding individual right to bear arms?
Yes, seeing as they were also divided 5-4 in the Citizens United decision.

Which, btw, was purely a 1st Amendment issue and contrary to what people who've never read the ruling claim was not about campaign donations and didn't rule that corporations are people.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 12, 2014, 10:30 AM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,841
One of the beauties of the US Constitution is that it was written in (relatively) plain language, not convoluted legalese. I believe this was done intentionally.

Many of us still believe that it means just what it says.

However, here we are, a couple hundred years later, and things have gotten to the point of major legal matters being decided "depending on what the meaning of "is", is..."

The Supreme Court is not infallible. Sometimes, it is not even correct. But under our system, no matter what the decision, only the Supreme Court can over rule the Supreme Court.

So, a 5-4 decision on something that ought to have been 9-0 happens all too often. TO me, this speaks more to the make up of the court than to the issues themselves.

Apparently asking some people to place their work above (or aside) from their personal beliefs is simply just too much. And the fact that those people get on the court is our problem, more than theirs.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09805 seconds with 9 queries