January 12, 2010, 08:17 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Tennessee Gentleman - apologize for any misunderstanding - the first part/paragraph of my post - which could have been clearer was directed towards zukiphile's comment - "You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. Education itself is a good thing, but for the body of people whose decisions are emotionally driven, education is not relevent."
It was not intended to impunge you or anyone on this board. And it was relating to the attitude that some in the general public have against guns which I felt zukiphile characterized accurately in regards to a portion of the general public. And I wasn't trying to put down people who have those views themselves - why should they necessarily have a particularily informed view of guns and not base their views on their personal experience or lack thereof or on the recieved views of their peer group. Yes, public attitude does influence repeal - but it is not a simple majority or percent in favor. It is widely accepted that the assault weapon ban contributed significantly to the democratic loss of the house and senate - but even then the majority of americans really didn't care that much about it - it was a committed minority, I would guess maybe 10 percent or less that voted single issue and also influenced their friends and neighbors votes that made the difference. Politicians may be many things but they can usually count votes and the same thing is needed for the repeal of the hughes amendment - not convincing a majority - but getting the gun owning community solidly behind repeal and then getting them to influence family and friends. That is why the NRA has always been more powerful than the Brady bunch - the NRA's support however broad it may be - is a mile deep - while the gun controllers support, however wide - is only an inch deep. I guess that is why I find it disconcerting when I feel as though gun owners start "drawing lines within their own community" - Shotgunners, handgunners, cowboy shooters, rifle shooters, hunters, full auto....ect.... But as I originally meant to end by saying - we may just agree to disagree - and thank you TG - and all - for your comments and thoughts on this issue. I think we can all work to in our own way to promote safe and responsible gun ownership. |
January 12, 2010, 10:22 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
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. |
|
January 12, 2010, 11:00 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Like many things, its more a matter of perception than the actual reality
I know a great many people who are firm 2nd Amendment supporters, but not gun enthusiasts. Some are hunters, others are not. But they all believe that we have the right to own guns, for protection, or sport. But they do not believe is machinegun ownership for the general public. As one once told me, "I trust you, you know guns, and what you are doing, but lots of people don't".
And in the end, that what it boils down to, excluding the committed anti gunners, and those simply brainwashed by the anti's propaganda. Decent, intelligent people simply do not believe the common people are responsible enough to be safe with full auto weapons. And, they may be right. We can't know for sure, since that state has not existed since 1934 when restrictive regulations took effect. But I find it likely they would be right, if things were to magically be changed overnight. Too many people are alreadly irresponsible about too many things already, and adding in totally unrestricted full auto ownership doesn't seem to me to make things any better. But that's not precisely what's under discussion. Quote:
There are apparently a number of people, who have enough money(if the price was even remotely reasonable), and would be willing to go through the NFA process, if the law would allow them to. This is probably due to the attacks and bans on semi auto guns drawing their attention to the subject in the first place. I mean, suppose you're well off enough to be able to afford a couple thousand for the gun you want, but not $20-40K (or more) for one of the legally transferable guns. And the law won't let you buy (or build) and register a new one. Pretty frustrating, especially when you have been shooting that AR or AK, and would like to experience it in full auto. You can afford it (or could if the price was not aritifically hugely inflated), you got a clean record, can pass any background check, can even get the local Police chief to agree, but the law says you can't do it. I've been seeing a few of these threads lately, probably from younger folks who were not of an age or income level back when the '86 law went into effect, and are just finding out now the legal limits to full auto ownership. If the Hughes amendment were repealed, I think that there are a lot of people would would jump at the chance, and go through the hassle to be able to put the "happy switch" in their AR for a few hundred dollars. I would, if the state I lived in allowed it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 13, 2010, 09:42 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Ah, but the point is that a lot of states don't allow it and even in those states that do - there are many jurisdictions where getting the law enforcement sign off is not easy. Especially in more urban/metropolitan areas. Just look at FFL's - it really is not that hard to get a basic FFL - a lot easier in fact than to get full auto - yet there are many areas that have a shortage of available FFL's. Yes, a lot of people say they want or even would get full auto, (particularily on gun forums which provides a skewed sample), but the reality is that even if the Hughes amendment were repealed and the price dropped from 20,000 to 2,000 or even 1,000, (which 1,000 would probably be rock bottom since there are restrictions on imports, there would still be very limited demand, and all the paperwork and legal hurdles to selling them, and limited FFL's who can sell full auto, and old guns would still command a premium as collector items), not very many people are going to end up jumping through all the hoops necessary to own one. At most because of pent up demand and the distortion of the market caused by Hughes - one might see a doubling in the number of full auto owners in the first year or two after repeal - which is a relatively small number - and probably more than half of the new full auto's sold would go to people who already owned/had full auto's before repeal since they have gone through the all the hoops before and obviously live in areas in states where it is legal and they can get law enforcement sign offs. So, if you think that doubling the small number of full auto owners is a huge increase then we would disagree, because the total number of full auto owners would still be a small proportion of gun owners and an even smaller number of the general population.
I guess where we mostly disagree is over the right to own full auto and the responsibilty of individuals. If I understand you correctly you do not believe people have the right to own machine guns and you do not believe that people in general are responsible enough to own them. Whether or not people have a right to own them is a whole other discussion so I won't address that here. However, as to whether or not people are responsible enough to own them - well that begs the question - if prior to the hughes amendment in 1986 when new machine guns were available there wasn't a problem with people being irresponsible why would that change? Are people today so different - much less responsible? I mean given the liberalization of concealed carry laws in the last two to three decades, if people were less responsible now one would think that there would be shoot outs in the streets as predicted by the opponents of shall issue concealed carry - but there hasn't been. One might think that the number of fatal firearm accidents would have increased if people today are less responsible, but they have decreased. As you posted: "Decent, intelligent people simply do not believe the common people are responsible enough to be safe with full auto weapons. And, they may be right. We can't know for sure, since that state has not existed since 1934 when restrictive regulations took effect. But I find it likely they would be right, if things were to magically be changed overnight. Too many people are alreadly irresponsible about too many things already, and adding in totally unrestricted full auto ownership doesn't seem to me to make things any better. But that's not precisely what's under discussion." Again, soley repealing the Hughes amendment would not result in totally unrestricted full auto ownership. So, I am struggling to understand your concerns about it - as I know that as you say - many individuals share your point of view or concerns. I may be confused here as I am not clear if you are talking about Hughes or the NFA of 1934 or both. I am not trying to be contentious or argumentative here - I really do want to understand. |
January 13, 2010, 11:19 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
I think a lot of gun owners would not buy FA because of other reasons besides fear. I don't believe FA has EVER been popular with the great majority of the gun owning public EVEN before the NFA. In 1986 the registry (according to Al Norris) had about 100K of legal owners. Compare that to maybe 90 MILLION gun owners and that is a drop in the bucket. Others argue that more would own them if all restrictions were lifted and I agree more would but I see no evidence that say 20% of all gun owners would buy them. IMO the public in general and many gun owners think FA was designed and intended for military applications (area denial and fire suppression) and are inappropriate for self defense and hunting and belong mostly in the "different world" of hobbyists and collectors. As stated before the militia justification is seen by most as nutty. Sure the public is afraid of them being legally widespread but they also see no practical need for them either.
__________________
"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. |
|
January 13, 2010, 11:46 AM | #31 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 13, 2010, 09:42 PM | #32 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Pre 1934...
Full auto ownership was not "popular" and was not "common" among the majority of American gun owners. This was because, primarily of the nature of American gun ownership of the time, and the cost of full auto firearms compared to the general economic times.
Had the NFA 34 not been passed, it is entirely possible that by the 1950s that could have changed. But that's a what if situation, having nothing to do with things as they are today. Before 34, those people who legally owned full autos, and by that I am not talking about criminals like bank robbers or bootleggers, were mostly collectors and hobbyists well off enough to afford them, and people who brought them back as war trophies. A new Tommygun cost as much as several rifles and handguns put together, and for the majority of gun owners, there was simply no reason to spend the money to own one, as its practical value was less than cheaper "working guns". When the 34 law took effect, large numbers of full auto guns were not registered with the govt, for a number of reasons, inability/unwillingness to pay the tax, and suspicion of govt. being the chief reasons. For decades afterwards, the policy was that if you got caught with an unregistered full auto (having committed no other crime), you paid the tax, registered the gun, and the govt. was happy. Criminal prosecutions for failing to register and pay the tax (when no other crime was involved) were quite rare. Until 1968. The govt offered an amnesty period to get "all" the unregistered guns registered and taxed. After this expired the govt policy became prosecution for having an unregistered and untaxed (aka "illegal") full auto. New made guns (complete originals or conversions) were allowed to be registered, (prior to construction/conversion), and "discovered" guns were generally also allowed to be registered and made legal. That ended in 86, with the Hughes Amendment. No more full autos for civilian ownership. Ever. The argument that full autos were not popular, and widely owned before 34 and therefore the govt has a valid right to restrict them is fallacious. Top fuel dragsters are not commonly owned by the majority of car owners. It is simply a matter of cost, interest and utility among the general public. My personal view is that there should be NO gun control laws of any kind, simply because (like other inanimate objects) guns are incapable of harming anyone without a person aiming and firing them. We have had laws since the creation of laws, that prohibit harming others for fun and profit. To me, this seems sufficient. BUT, I am enough of a realist to recognize that we have these laws, and too many people believe that they are of significant value, so they are not going away. I have no personal objection to the NFA 34's restrictions (the hoops you have to jump through), except that the local law enforcement approval should be a "must" approve, in the absence of evidence disqualifying you. Note that in the recent decades, interest in, and ownership of military style rifles has grown hugely. ARs and AKs, (semi auto) are owned in huge numbers by lots of "ordinary" gun owners today. I believe that if the laws and economics allowed, a significant percentage of these guns would be made select fire, which is full auto under US law. Lots of people are into these kinds of guns today (and likely because of the potential for them being restricted by the govt), and this interest leads them to an interest in full auto as well. Resetting the law back to pre 86 levels would be fine with me. And it would head off the possible legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment that ought to be brought, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller vs DC case. I will not fight or argue against the govt registering and putting "reasonable" restrictions on full auto ownership. I don't think it should, but I am clearly in the minority on that. So be it. But what the Hughes amendment does is create a "de facto" ban, on an entire class of firearm. And that appears to be contrary to the Heller decision, and so can be fought in court. In the end, that may be our safest avenue of attack, as unlike an awakened and enraged public/Congress, the courts are unlikely to add additional restrictions into law should our case fail. The main problem with any public campaign to repeal/nullify the Hughes amendment is that it will be (deliberately) portrayed as "total unrestricted machinegun ownership", to the public, and to lawmakers. All the NFA requirements and restrictions will be conveniently overlooked, and the press will scream about how we want these "formerly illegal guns available on every streetcorner" and how nutjobs, drug dealers and terrorists will buy them at gunshows through the loophole! etc. etc.etc. I'd like to see the 86 "ban" go away, but these things must be done...delicately.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 13, 2010, 09:45 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Using a Reverse Argument.
Somewhere down the road, we may wish to use a reverse argument. Once assault weapons have become much more acceptable to the public through our education techniques and because the Brady's and others grow tired of banging their heads against the brick wall, we can start to make the argument that full auto is really not all that different from semi auto, especially 3 round burst mode. It's something we should consider at some point in time.
The anti's have tried their best to equate semi auto with full auto because they believe that the public is scared poopless of FA. Well, if we turn that around and can reassure the public that SA's are not that dangerous (we use them for deer hunting after all), and even the Bradys were equating SA to FA, then by logic, FA is not all that dangerous either. I realize that it's a long shot.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
January 13, 2010, 10:22 PM | #34 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
EDIT: Has Hughes been challenged in court like the NFA? Just wondering.
__________________
"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. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM. Reason: spelling |
|||||
January 13, 2010, 10:23 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
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. |
|
January 14, 2010, 01:40 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
Back on topic, personally I don't see great odds on the Hughes Act going away any time in the near future, simply because it's difficult bordering on impossible to make a case for what you can do with full auto that you can't do with another weapon except for just recreational shooting. You won't be hunting on auto, and it's not likely to be any more effective for home defense than a semi-auto shotgun. So you're left with a very uphill battle trying to say why it should be easily obtained. Laws that don't create a frequent sense of injustice (and even some that do) tend to stay on the books. For that matter, ask yourselves what you'd be using it for if you had one? I personally would enjoy having an auto weapon around for fun, but I doubt it would get as much use as would my semi-auto or bolt weapons. Accuracy counts for a lot more than rate of fire. |
|
January 14, 2010, 03:25 PM | #37 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Thats the point!
Quote:
Govt has the authority to regulate full auto (even though to a true libertarian/strict constructionist they shouldn't), due to their "unusual and dangerous" nature, but they have no reason to deny us them all together. And, given enough time, thats what the Hughes amendment will do. They were restricted, taxed and regulated under the NFA 34, but not denied. Individual states may deny ownership (as far as I know, there are only two or three that actually do), but that is a matter for the individual states, and their citizens. There are a huge number of things in our modern world that have little or no "useful" purpose, other than recreation/enertainment. Many of these things can be misused to lethal ends. Most of them are not regulated at all, or very slightly. The govt does not deny them to us. The whole idea of the government denying us such property as we desire to own and use in a safe and legal manner is, to me, contrary to the idea of personal liberty. Regulate it, tax it (if you must), ensure the owners are stable, law abiding citizens, fine. But do not arbitrarily completely deny ownership. Firearms have an uphill battle to be considered the same as other property, due to the lethal consequences and ease of their misuse, and lack of everyday utility to the average citizen. No one even considers a complete ban on items of common utility, even though their misuse can have as great a consequence. We regulate them instead. Why do you need a license to drive a car on public roads? For public safety. We license full auto owners for the same basic reason. It is the operators intent that turns an inanimate object from a tool to a weapon. The greatest mass murder of modern times was not done with guns on that September day.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 14, 2010, 04:50 PM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that licensing or permitting tanks would be a good idea today, just that even FA small arms pale in comparison to the damage that a well-aimed projectile can do that measures two to four inches in diameter. All firearms are by definition dangerous. But if the militia clause is to have any modern relevance whatsoever, I would argue that a select-fire-M16 should NOT be defined as dangerous and unusual and therefore should not be able to be banned outright. If the ability to resist a future tyrannical government is part and parcel of 2A, (and Heller says it is) then a primary object of the amendment would be to preserve the citizenry's means to sufficient force to resist that tyranny. Quote:
|
||
January 14, 2010, 05:04 PM | #39 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
I read Heller and especially the oral argument with Alan Gura that FA will be considered both dangerous and unusual and not in common use and all existing laws regulating them upheld. 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. |
||
January 14, 2010, 06:21 PM | #40 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
T.G:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then Scalia offers this: Quote:
And finally from pages 24-25 of the decision: Quote:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; January 14, 2010 at 06:38 PM. |
|||||||
January 14, 2010, 06:38 PM | #41 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 14, 2010 at 06:48 PM. |
|||||||
January 14, 2010, 07:10 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
|
There will be no major gun law changes. As noted we cant even agree.
Look at the above posters personal info. How many belong to a RKBA group?? Paltry few..costs too much, too much mail, blah blah blah PS looks like public info dont ask who supports/who dont. Im sure less than 1/3. |
January 14, 2010, 07:54 PM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
January 15, 2010, 01:29 AM | #44 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How people miss the forest for the trees on this point eludes me: It is the ABILITY AND MEANS TO RAISE A MILITIA, NOT necessarily the militia itself that is preserved in the amendment. If it isn't raised for 300 more years, it is still the best, last recourse against future tyranny. It is a credit to the health of our republic that it will likely never be needed, unless it is thrown out, which seems to be what T.G. is suggesting. Last edited by maestro pistolero; January 15, 2010 at 03:08 AM. |
||||
January 15, 2010, 11:05 AM | #45 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you try to argue in court that you need access to all types of military weapons to be able to overthrow a "perceived tryanncial" government as part of some self designated "miltia" then I think that argument would and should fail miserably. The STATE miltia was the bulwark against tyranny and the STATES did away with them because they were no longer needed. You say dormant and I say dead in either case it is not around and since the unorganized militia gives the individual no rights, duties or responsibilities then I can see it as a dead letter unless and until a state calls it up which they will not so it is dead right NOW. Since the NG has fulfilled the need the militia as it was in 1789 is no more and will never be again IMO. Quote:
BTW I just read Patriots by some guy named James Rawles since so many on here believe in the END. What a kooky book! I really liked the cannibal gangs that were also communists! Oh my goodness this guy was FUNNY. How some can read that bilge and believe it is scary. Those are the miltia folks. Also, if we keep talking about militias it may be time to post my famous pic of the modern miltia!
__________________
"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. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; January 15, 2010 at 11:24 AM. |
||||
January 15, 2010, 11:25 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Oh what the heck!
Your modern miltia!
__________________
"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. |
January 15, 2010, 12:51 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
I would say that if there's any chance of undoing the 1986 closure of the NFA registry, it would be via the courts and the holding of the registry closure as a de facto ban illegal under Heller, with the precedent existing of the 1934 NFA showing that full auto is considered to be a legal form of weapon for civilian ownership. |
|
January 15, 2010, 01:06 PM | #48 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Now, while that doesn't make me any more American than last week's immigrant, nor does it make me a militia expert, I do have an interest and identification with this issue beyond the average citizen. And I have read more than enough from our founders to form a view that's probably very clear as to their intent. You misread my view completely here: Quote:
|
||
January 15, 2010, 02:52 PM | #49 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The OP's question has been answered -- At least as well as it can be, at this point in time.
I see we've started down the path of the militia, yet again. Tell ya what, Open a Thread on that subject and that subject alone, and we'll leave it open for all to discuss. But not as a side topic in other threads (I'm waving the ban stick, guys!). Closed. |
Tags |
big mac |
|
|