April 30, 2009, 08:21 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
|
I hate to say it.....
But after reading through the hughes amendment (EDIT: I really should have put S.49) I hope it never gets annulled/repealed as a whole because It seems to be pro gun rights except for the full auto thing.
P.S could someone edit the title because I am a dunce and put hare instead of hate. Title edited. Antipitas Last edited by M4Sherman; April 30, 2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason: Being a dunce |
April 30, 2009, 09:20 PM | #2 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
A good summary:
Quote:
If those names look familiar, they're all cosponsors of this year's "gun show loophole" bill, S. 843. The Hughes amendment, which simply reads, Quote:
Now, the OP brings up a point: if this whole shebang were repealed, would it mean that all of those good provisions were moot? The answer is no. Someone would have to step in and pass legislation requiring record-keeping on ammunition sales. Essentially, we would lose the bad elements while keeping the good ones. I'd love to see it happen. It would not be a repeal of the NFA, and for most folks, it wouldn't change anything. After all, it's still illegal to import machineguns, and you need a manufacturing license to convert existing weapons (shortening a barrel, etc.). It would only really have one significant effect, but it is one that could keep a great many good people out of prison. WWII veterans are passing on, and their children are finding old automatic rifles and trench brooms in the attic. If they weren't registerd by 1986 (and most weren't), there is no legal way to have these in your posession. You can go to prison for owning it. You can go to prison for trying to sell it, even if you don't know better. Your only choice is to surrender it to law enforcement. Heck, in a place like Chicago or New York, what happens if you get pulled over with it in your car while you're on your way to turn it in? Yeah.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
April 30, 2009, 10:14 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
|
Ahh well The I stand corrected on the hughes amendment thing. I just dont want S.49 revoked as a whole ever due to most of the items in it are very, very reasonable (such as the "Adds serious drug offenses to the list of crimes receiving enhanced penalties")
I just wish the full auto thing would be eliminated so I could get a PPSH for less than a new car. |
April 30, 2009, 11:41 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Sherman,
I wouldn't look for that repeal anytime soon. Here is a good quote from Alan Gura who represented Dick Heller: Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
May 1, 2009, 03:05 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,684
|
The Hughes Amendment
was intended to be a 'poison pill' for the whole bill (the Gun Onwer Protection act), and (as noted) was passed at the last minute, by voice vote only.
Reagan drew a lot of heat since then for signing it into law, but at the time, it was considered the breatest good for the greatest number. AND IT WAS. Lots of us would love to be able to own new FA firearms, and have them added to the registry. Some are quite upset that they can't, and rail against Reagan's signing the bill. But the reality is that a good many people have been saved from a lot of trouble by the law, and overall it did more good than harm. The way to get around this, is not to have an open public debate, and try to generate support for easing the FA ban, that will not work. Decades of propaganda (and there's really no other word for it) in popular entertainment showing only criminals (and govt emplyees-police/soldiers) with FA guns has done its work on the American public. I say the way to fix the situation is to have some pro gun legislator, quietly, without fuss or fanfare, slip a line into a "must pass" bill, reading something like "change line xxxx, law abcd, to read.....," and just shut up about it if it passes. Then, after it is established law, then just follow the law, as it exists, the same way we do now. Once that happens, when the antis figure out what happened and start screaming about how "anyone can buy a machine gun", we make sure the focus of the info (as best we can, anyway) is to point out that the Fed background check and (as importantly) permission from the head of local law enforcement is needed to buy one. Since the only people who can buy are already approved by both the Federal govt AND the local cops, how can they disapprove? If those approved people aren't trustworthy enough, neither are govt employees (in and out of uniform), who seldom have anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny done on them, before the govt hands them an automatic weapon. Might not work, but why not try?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
May 1, 2009, 04:41 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Subtle
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
May 1, 2009, 11:14 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
|
The main reason I posted this is because people don't seem to relies that their is alot more good in this bad.
Also That might work but we must remember that every time someone under estimates their opponent they always end up in worse shape then when they started. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|