So where's the gun control debate?

[TruthTellers]

And several states don't obey the safe passage law and the solution that's been told to people has been don't drive to those states.

Such a great trade off.

[44 AMP]

Tis a sad fact of life that our system of government has a great number of flaws and often they don't work in our favor. Everyone is happy to ignore them when they do benefit us, and whine endlessly when the shoe is on the other foot, (or WE get the other end of the stick )

The Hughes Amendment which closed the civilian machinegun registry was added with the intent of it being a poison pill. There was even some sources at the time who said it wasn't added in accordance with proper procedure, but the chairman declared it passed and part of the bill, anyway.

Moot point now, but I believe it.

Since our President lacks the power of line item veto (that many state governors have) signing a bill into law is an all or nothing matter. While you or I might not agree with the decision (particularly NOW with decades of experience with the results) Reagan choose what he felt was the greatest good for the greatest number and signed it into law.

Was it a good thing? Depends on your point of view. If you're someone who wants to own a legal machinegun and can't afford the cost, then you probably don't think so.

If you're someone who gets saved by the FOPA despite everything an anti gun state does trying to convict you, or a dealer who doesn't go to prison for simply making an error writing down a number, then you probably have a different opinion.

Always remember that those of us who want and are or would be full auto enthusiasts are a SMALL portion of the gun owners in this country and most of them have been "taught" that machineguns are bad, and dangerous long ago, and are being "taught" today that semi autos are just as bad...

And, sad but true, because we elect our government, we get what the majority chooses, for good, or ill. The alternatives are worse.


.

[T. O'Heir]

The Hearing Protection Act is somebody's hallucination that a suppressor is necessary for hunting.
"...nation could be under draconian rule..." You're already under that. Between The Donald's BS(the guy repeats his lies after being caught lying) and unelected civil servants being allowed to make law by regulation with no elected rep input, you're there now.
Like AMP says, any "debate" about firearms laws would be a "poison pill" for them.
"...and found (somehow) to be Constitutional..." Or found unconstitutional by the US SC like Illinois' firearms laws and promptly ignored by the Illinois politicians.

[5whiskey]

The Hearing Protection Act is somebody's hallucination that a suppressor is necessary for hunting.

No, that’s not it at all. The HPA is the reality that suppressors have been used in very few crimes, and reducing noise from firearms is the good neighborly thing to do. Lots of people in rural America have a safe place to shoot on their own property, but often choose not to so as to not be a nuisance to neighbors. Many European countries that allow private ownership of firearms more less unencumbered encourage or require the use of a suppressor instead of regulating it with unneeded paperwork and taxes. And it could actually prevent hearing damage, especially in indoor ranges where double ear pro (inserts and muffs) is really needed to protect hearing. Many indoor shooters do not bother with double ear pro. HPA would be good law, and keeping suppressors at their current status is silly.

[ATN082268]

Others have already pointed this out but I'm surprised suppressors aren't required so as to drive up the cost of the weapon, making it less available.

[44 AMP]

The old argument that poachers would not be caught and men could do murder without the sound of the shot giving them away was, and always has been pablum for the feeble minded.

Guns are not the only way, just the only way that makes significant noise. Remove that, and well, then criminals with guns become just as difficult to catch as criminals with knives, axes, and bows & arrows! Oh the horror!!
we shall all be helpless at the mercy of the soundless evil!!

Along with the fact that some of us believe that the NFA 34 was just passed to make work for Treasury agents needing a job after the repeal of Prohibition, is the story about how the original drafts of the NFA included handguns along with machine guns and sawed off guns, and didn't include silencers.

Supposedly someone convinced those pushing the bill that if handguns were included it would just be too much and would never pass, so they removed the handgun provisions and replaced them with regulation of "silencers" instead.

No one living today knows with certainty the real truth and no documents tell us the back room deals and conversations that played politics back then, so who's to say what really happened.

No matter how it came about, the law is what we have to deal with today, no matter if it is not based on logic or valid assumptions.

Also remember that when the law was new, failure to register and pay the fee was a TAX matter, and not a criminal one. That came about decades later...

[DaleA]

No one living today knows with certainty the real truth and no documents tell us the back room deals and conversations that played politics back then, so who's to say what really happened.

That's pretty much true today too. That's why I've advocated for body cams on our politicians as well as our police.

[seanc]

HPA is also important for home security. Why do most people own a gun? For home/self protection. If you ever need your gun, it's most likely going to be at home, and shooting indoors is going to be VERY loud. As many people that have CCW, that's just a small number compared to how many have a gun on their nightstand.

The HPA hunting angle seemed weak to me. There's fewer and fewer hunters each year. Besides, hunting deer, it seems that loud noise almost calls them in. Fire a bow and every deer within 30 miles runs the other direction. Shoot at 1 deer with a rifle and I swear, it seems a few minutes later, more deer show up to see what's going on.

[44 AMP]

Body cams on politicians?? what are you trying to do, shut down the govt??

Even if somehow it became the rule, I think you'd find that vital footage would be "lost" misfiled, kept under review until no longer useful, or simply "too corrupted to obtain useful data".

There's a reason people don't want certain things of the record, and because of that, they will find ways to keep things off the record.

[zoo]

Apparently not too many here have attempted to obtain LEO body cam recordings. They sometimes act like you’re asking to pull their molars.

[Jim Watson]

I once suggested to a SWAT that his sniper rifle be fitted with one of those scopes that records the shot. It runs continuously so you have some seconds of action leading up to the shot. Talk about pulling teeth.

[44 AMP]

One of the problems with bodycams, dash cams and gun camera footage is, even if the entire thing from start to finish and beyond, is on tape, you're only seeing ONE point of view (the camera's).

What the viewer sees isn't the whole picture, and that whole picture may be needed to fully understand what happened.

And, since that footage MIGHT be evidence, neither the prosecution nor the defense is going to just happily give that out to the general public.

And then there's the whole problem with what gets done with said footage BY the public (specifically the news media).

Anyone remember the Rodney King riots??

Anyone remember the press constantly showing "the brutal beating of an innocent" man via 15-20 selected seconds of a minute+ long video?

That did kind of skew the public perception of the actual events...

[Erno86]

So Supreme court nominee - Federal judge Amy Barrett - has been known in the past to support removing a federal law against possession and ownership of firearms for people convicted of a felony --- But only for felons convicted of a non violent felony --- Yet she still supports the law that restricts convicted felons from voting.

Now her support for the right to own and possess firearms for felons convicted of a non violent crime might look good on paper --- But does a federal judge have the right to make the determination that the convicted felon has committed a non violent offense?

[DaleA]

Veering back on topic the debate topics for Thursday's (10/22/2020) Biden/Trump debate have been announced.

The commission announced last Friday that the last debate will have six topics: Fighting Covid-19, American families, race in America, climate change, national security and leadership.

So gun control isn't listed as a topic in this debate either, although as I've pointed out before Biden DOES have a rather lengthy list of gun control measures on his site. (And once again, if you're going there for the first time you'll get a page requesting a contribution to his campaign. Just click on "X continue to joebiden.com" and you'll get to his gun control page.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

[DaleA]

Huh. Typing up my last post (above) I just had a sudden urge to go out and buy (another) Ruger .22LR semi-auto...wonder why?

Maybe, kind of like May the fourth is Star Wars Day, October 22 could be Ruger Day.

[44 AMP]

Now her support for the right to own and possess firearms for felons convicted of a non violent crime might look good on paper --- But does a federal judge have the right to make the determination that the convicted felon has committed a non violent offense?

I'd say they don't have to. THAT decision has already been made when they were convicted.

I think the issue is about how we have a literal trainload of crimes where no one was physically injured, or violently harmed and yet are classed as felonies.

The one size fits all (effectively) permanent lifetime ban on legal firearm possession for ALL felons became law in 1968. It is not a time honored tradition with roots going back to English common law, it is some thing enacted within living memory and done much more broadly then the stated reasons at the time. I think there is good and valid reason to question the validity of that law as passed, but that's just one point among many.

I would caution all to remember that what one might personally supports or thinks is a good idea is not any guarantee that is how the judge will rule.

She just might possibly be one of those (increasingly rare people) who can and do rise above their personal opinions to rule based on the law.

if she's not placed on the court, we'll never know for sure, will we...

[Ignition Override]

TruthTellers: you summarized so much of the situation superbly.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by Ignition Override

TruthTellers: you summarized so much of the situation superbly.

It's easy when it's all so obvious. The Republicans in Congress will NEVER allow an anti gun law (except maybe bump stocks) to ever pass in a body they control because that's the end of their congressional career, but once they get power they drag their feet when it comes to repealing any law, be it the NFA, GCA, or the ACA.

I'm not going to accept it anymore, I expect any Republican running to not take guns away, so seeing all these Trump rallies where he says, "I'm gonna protect your 2A rights!!!" but he never talks about supporting repealing parts of the NFA and GCA and Hughes tells me he either doesn't know anything about them or he does and doesn't want to touch them.

If somebody is going to run for office who says they'll defend 2A, then I want them to tell me why they don't support repeals of those laws. If they say you have a right to my AR, then why don't I have a right to shorten the barrel to 10 inches without having to go thru infringements of an unconstitutional tax, registering my gun with the gov't, and waiting months and months to be allowed to make my guns barrel shorter?

If it's that they think those laws are good, then they're frauds giving lip service because it's the NFA and the machine gun laws that are what future Presidents under pressure due to the latest string of mass shootings are going to use to put AR's and AK's under the NFA umbrella and Congressional Republicans, whether already in control of both houses or the next time they are, they'll get back in power saying they'll make it so semi auto guns can never legally be an NFA item solely for being a semi auto, but they'll never get it passed. Romney will walk out and give a thumbs down just like McCain did and AR's, Glocks, etc. will be on the NFA forever.

If Republican Congressman think altering the NFA, GCA, and Hughes are losing topics then clearly it's a topic worth debating because in general I do not think the average American cares about barrel lengths for rifles/shotguns being an issue. They're smart enough to know that a gun of any barrel length is deadly, so what's the deal? Same for the sporting purposes clause. The idea of that in 68 was cut off supply of cheap guns because we didn't have background check systems like we do now. Besides, all that did was lead to companies like Raven, Jennings, etc. making their own cheap guns here in the US.

If the reason the Republicans don't want to push it is because they feel that SCOTUS is the most effective branch to deal with making changes to those laws, then why is it that none of them ask the justices nominated by a Republican president what their opinion is on the NFA, GCA, and Hughes?

It's all very simple stuff because the Bill of Rights is itself very simple. If people want to restrict certain weapons from being owned the way to do it is thru amending the Constitution. It would take much more than a simple majority to do it and if say the 28th Amendment outright banned civilian ownership of machine guns, at least it would take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 states to approve that, thus showing a clear and overwhelming majority are in agreement.

What it comes down to is neither side is all that good for us. We always get stuck choosing the lesser of all evils.

[Targa]

There doesn’t need to be a debate. When asked the Democrats are no longer trying to sugar coat it, they will flat out tell you that they are coming for our guns and for the FFL’s of dealers to disarm society.

[44 AMP]

Understand that "protecting" is not the same as repealing. And that, depending on the politician, as long as you are still allowed to own some kind of gun (and only one) then your 2nd Amendment rights have not been violated.

Lots of us see it differently, but all that matter to the politicians is our votes.

IF everyone who wanted or ever thought someday they might want some item covered under the NFA 34, voted as a single unified block, AND only voted based on that issue alone, we MIGHT have the political power to be noticed. but not necessarily listened to.

Our arguments are lucid, logical, reasonable, and valid, TO US. TO the rest of the nation, we're fringe types and not worth listening to, because the anti side of the issue is constantly telling them that, and has been for generations.

This is the fundamental downside to democracy, right or WRONG, majority rules.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

It's easy when it's all so obvious. The Republicans in Congress will NEVER allow an anti gun law (except maybe bump stocks) to ever pass in a body they control because that's the end of their congressional career, but once they get power they drag their feet when it comes to repealing any law, be it the NFA, GCA, or the ACA.

Emphasis added. You are not recalling that accurately. One of the first votes on the House when the repubs retook it in 2011 was an ACA repeal. Guess who controlled the Senate?

If the issues of the NFA and GCA were that close a call, that would be amazing progress.

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

I'm not going to accept it anymore, I expect any Republican running to not take guns away, so seeing all these Trump rallies where he says, "I'm gonna protect your 2A rights!!!" but he never talks about supporting repealing parts of the NFA and GCA and Hughes tells me he either doesn't know anything about them or he does and doesn't want to touch them.

...Or, he knows that proclaiming his support for a right even Alan Gura doesn't think you have is election poison.

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

If somebody is going to run for office who says they'll defend 2A, then I want them to tell me why they don't support repeals of those laws. If they say you have a right to my AR, then why don't I have a right to shorten the barrel to 10 inches without having to go thru infringements of an unconstitutional tax, registering my gun with the gov't, and waiting months and months to be allowed to make my guns barrel shorter?

If you can't support a widely acceptable gun rights position (current restrictions, but no more), are you effectively supporting the Robert Francis O'Rourke position (Hell yes, I'll take your AR)?

You aren't wrong: I don't want a machine gun with a 10 inch barrel, but if you do, you should have your right to it protected and it's no skin off my nose.

As an electoral tactic 100% purely my position or you are dead to me is a formula for failure. Bill Buckley's idea was that you should vote for candidate closest to your position who also has a plausible chance of being elected.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Understand that "protecting" is not the same as repealing. And that, depending on the politician, as long as you are still allowed to own some kind of gun (and only one) then your 2nd Amendment rights have not been violated.

Lots of us see it differently, but all that matter to the politicians is our votes.

IF everyone who wanted or ever thought someday they might want some item covered under the NFA 34, voted as a single unified block, AND only voted based on that issue alone, we MIGHT have the political power to be noticed. but not necessarily listened to.

Our arguments are lucid, logical, reasonable, and valid, TO US. TO the rest of the nation, we're fringe types and not worth listening to, because the anti side of the issue is constantly telling them that, and has been for generations.

This is the fundamental downside to democracy, right or WRONG, majority rules.

Majority rules, but the entire purpose of the constitution was to protect the rights of the minority.

We are the minority and our rights have been infringed for almost a century.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You aren't wrong: I don't want a machine gun with a 10 inch barrel, but if you do, you should have your right to it protected and it's no skin off my nose.

As an electoral tactic 100% purely my position or you are dead to me is a formula for failure. Bill Buckley's idea was that you should vote for candidate closest to your position who also has a plausible chance of being elected.

Never said I wouldn't vote for them, just that I want to know where their thoughts really lay.

[zukiphile]

Never said I wouldn't vote for them, just that I want to know where their thoughts really lay.

That's a fair point and a legitimate desire. How would a candidate tell you about his problems with the NFA and GCA without having his position caricatured by his opponent to sink him?

Say I run to be a congressman for your district. I announce that I think (as I do) the NFA tax to exercise a fundamental constitutional right is entirely contrary to our notions of the propriety of taxes on other rights, like voting, and isn't supported by any authority granted to Congress in the COTUS. Isn't it inevitable that I spend the rest of my losing campaign responding to accusations that I want adjudicated defectives walking into schools and killing all the children?

Would you ultimately be happier if I moderated the expression of my thoughts, won the election, and looked for ways to improve matters as they arose?

[44 AMP]

Our biggest problem getting the "R" side off their ass and actually doing something FOR us is simply that the "D" side has openly declared they are against private civilian firearms ownership.

The "R"s see that and look at us and (sometimes literally) say, "where else are you gonna go??"

All they have to do is promise to hold the line and they get our vote. Even when they don't hold the line, they get our vote. What's their motive to do anything other than what they already are??

nada