I mean I want pre-'86. And I want to do away with the tax stamp. Keep the (more extensive) background check and registration, for now.
This.
And this.
Not I!
However, most of the crimes I remember from history lessons (committed with full auto weapons) were slaughters that just as easily could’ve been done with a pistol as a tommy-gun.
Boy, talk about slippery slopes. The gun nuts not only want to get rid of the AWB, they want to overturn the 1934 law on machine guns. Can’t trust you guys, your motives are clear; your REAL goal is this.
So pre-1986 means pre-1934 to you? And you’re not going to even attempt to provide stats to back up your fear of fully auto guns, or attempt to show why the pre-1986 rules needed to be changed?
And while I’m at it, did you read your cite?
Horrible!
Wow, you didn’t even attempt to read my post, or Stealth Potatos, did you?
Even so, it’s not a slippery slope to regain rights. It’s only a slippery slope to lose them. If the government abridged the freedom of the press, and someone stated “We should be able to print what we want, when we want,” would that, too, be a slippery slope?
I’m sorry if I was not clear in any of the other countless threads here. Yes, I want ALL rights restored. That’s full auto, short barreled rifles and shotguns, pistols with butt stocks, silencers, the whole deal. Would you like me to make it any more clear? At least I’m legit in my argument and my end goal. I can’t say as much for my foes in this struggle.
I love this: “I can use stupid, dis-ingenuous arguments against you, just don’t use them against me”.
Could well be. Imagine that NAMBLA had a plan to remove the prohibition against child pornography, but just couched it’s first step in “freedom of the press”. It’s clear than many posters in this thread want far more than the AWB repealed, they want no regulation of guns whatsoever.
Thank you, but I want to live in a society where people work together to mitigate drive by strafings.
Yes, as well as the studies that show the crime rates have actually stayed the same while Morton Grove’s have declined 4.5%
To be honest, a slippery slope argument need not be invoked for the AWB anyway. It’s such bad policy irrespective of any other considerations that that’s a sufficient argument, even without invoking the loss of rights or further damage from it. Slippery slopes become more relevant on subjects like gun registration, which might seem innocuous or even benign until you factor in the typical results or goals associated with them.
It’s not a stupid, dis-ingenuous argument, though.
Major campaigners for gun restrictions have, repeatedly, said their end goal is firearms in the hands of police & military only.
From the head of the Brady Campaign.
And gun right supporters in this thread have said they want to remove all restrictions on machine guns. There are extreme positions on all sides.
So, one person’s opinion represents everyone?
ETA: :smack: Several people inidcated a pre-1986 Machine Gun status would be nice. I agree.
Dan: the 1986 Firearm Owner’s Protection Act was a law designed to protect gun owners crossing state lines on legitimate business, such as protecting a Missouri hunter going to Maine on an out-of-state hunting tag from being arrested for illegal possession of a firearm in New York, as he transits from Missouri to Maine.
Congressman William J. Huges (D - NJ) snuck a midnight amendment into the bill “freezing” the national machinegun registry, preventing any new firearms from being added to it.
It did not change any of the requirements or procedures for owning a machinegun established by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and amended (made more restrictive) by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
What it did do was create a limited supply to a lawful demand, thereby causing the prices of legal full-auto firearms/machineguns to skyrocket to double, triple, even quadruple their normal price.
Since the NFA of '34, there have been a grand total of two violent crimes committed with legally owned fully-automatic firearms, and one of those was by an Ohio police officer using his department-issued weapon to kill a police informant, so that doesn’t really count, now, does it?
So by saying we would like to revert to pre-'86 laws WRT machineguns, what we’re really saying is we’d like to repeal the shady, questionably legal Hughes Amendment.
It does not mean “Free machineguns for everyone! No waiting, no hassles! Bring the kids, too!”
ETA: And I don’t think that that’s an “extreme” position to take.
How ironic that those of us wishing to restore rights stolen are now considered extreme and those who wish to curtail them even further are likened to words such as reasonable and common sense?
It’s certainly one of the “-ronics,” but ironic isn’t the word I’d personally choose.
I agree that the 1934 restrictions on machine guns were effective in reducing violent crimes using them.
I’ve said this in other threads that this is a perfect example of gun control in action. You could make the case that the NFA '34 is a very effective piece of gun control legislation - the type of weapon it set out to regulate was practically never used in crime or for any bad purpose for decades. A shining example of gun control? Except that despite that in spite of that practically perfect record, gun control advocates decided they needed to be banned anyway.
IOW, this could be considered a perfect example of gun control in action, and it still resulted in not only further legislation, but an effective ban. If a class of regulated weapons have pretty much a perfect record, you ban them anyway, and then you tell people there are no slippery slopes when it comes to gun control. The NFA '34/1986 FOPA is a perfect example of gun control’s agenda in action - it’s not about safety or anything like that, it’s about pushing any ban you can manage regardless of circumstances.
This is a perfect example od gun advocate logic. A class of weapon that was starting to be used by Chicago gangsters (in one case a 1,000 rounds were shot into a building from a moving car) was effectively controled, and as a result there were virtually no crimes commited with those weapons in 75 years. Now gun advocates do not see this as a victory, they see it as an abridgement of their rights. So we should expect some negative effects from this ban, a lessening of civil rights as the government took on more power over the castrated masses. Now what has happened since 1934? Jim Crow is gone, women got a variety of rights (e.g., signing contracts without needing their husband’s signature), people can no longer be fired or denied housing simply because of their religion or ethnicity, standards on “pornography” have been loosened, and homosexuals are gaining the right for marriage or domestic partnership.
Shouldn’t exactly the opposite have happened? Shouldn’t we be living under the jackboot of brown shirts? Now of course we have restricected the “right” of people to take full auto machine guns out into the field and blow up watermelons, but so fucking what?
It would help the argument if gun control advocates would at least be honest. Despite all your claims about being opposed to govt tyranny, I just didn’t see contingents of the NRA standing up to protect black children facing angry mobs as they tried to attend integrated schools. Instead I see the majority (not all) of gun advocates voting again and again for knuckle dragging politicians who would be happy to see the niggers and fags and spics kept in their place. Politicians who won’t be satisfied until very child prays before school, every class room has a copy of the 10 commandments, and women are dened access to abortion and birth control.
Just admit it: blowing stuff up is fun, blowing stuff up with bigger guns is even more fun.
Cite? Something like a before and after? Proof that they were a problem anywhere besides episodes of the G-Men on the radio? Or Paper Lace songs?
No, no one said it should.
No, no one said we should.
And if we restrict the right to pray to your choice of (G/g)ods? So fucking what?
I’m an Atheist, it doesn’t really matter to me.
You’re going to compare a vocal minority of Hard-Conservatives with an entire movement? This is, by definition, an Ad Hominem attack, and a slander-by-association attack.
Just admit it, praying is fun. Doing it in public is even more fun.
Enjoyment is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, the discussion at hand has to do with rights, which we are all vested with (innately), and which the government is not given the power to infringe.
DanBlather, you’ve been disingenuous throughout this thread. I think it’s time to stand up and face reality. Your argument holds as much water as a wicker basket.
Bingo.
I don’t like to pick sides, but really Dan who’s side are you on? I am pissed that the gun control folks will not educate themselves about guns. And that they will use anything they can to ban any gun.
That’s my problem with it. On one hand they want the AWB, though they can’t define what they are banning. But claim it’s a very limited ban.
Many of the gun control folks admit that it’s just a step to ban all guns.
This knuckle dragging gun advocate of guns voted for Obama and was happy to do so. I do not appreciate your broad brush that has turned into a paint spray gun.
I’m not surprised though.