TheGunny Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 AIN'T NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! GOV.>>> http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/nutkick.gif <<<< Citizens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21 smoker Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 To get back to the original question.... the repeal of the MG ban of 1986 has to start with us,the NFA faithful. Surely, there is adaquate intellect,insight,and determination just in the membership on this forum to get the ball rolling....a `getter dunn` mentality....perhaps an open discussion on some creative ideas, tactics that would put this travesty on the reversal track.... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/soapbox.gif ...O.K. let`s hear it.... Phils, Arthur,Nick,Mike,Norm,etc.,etc... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 21smoker, I hate to admit it, but I will say it. I think that if we all got together an raised a big stink about repealing the ban, we would actually lose ground. I think that orginizations like HGC and other "gun grabbers" would take advantage of the fact that MOST Americans think that owning a machinegun (anywhere in the USA) is illegal. The UN would also use it against the USA also. Our saving grace has always been these two facts: 1. The federal govenment (ATF and FBI for fingerprints) has always made the decision on who is denied or allowed to own a machinegun through a very strict proccess. 2. The record of non-violence with REGISTERED machineguns is perfect with the exception of one person who commited a murder with one, and he was a police officer. This makes it very easy to argue that he, above all people in society, should have been able to control himself with a firearm of any kind. Don't get me wrong...I would love to see the MG ban overturned. I am even willing to admit that I will lose thousands of dollars in value on the two I own, but I would be able to buy an M3 greasegun for a few hundred bucks! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif I would be able to get that M16 I always wanted also. This is just my opinion...take it for what it is worth. Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted June 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 philasteen: Like I said....if you don't like the way the law is written or working, get with a group (GOA?) and work on changing it. 3,142 is still 3,142 MORE than Illinois or Wisconsin has. Illinois would need an overthrow of it's state government to get a CC law passed. There are just too many ultra-Libs in influential positions to ever see it happen normally. Jersey at least has a foot in the door...even if it's a small foot in a small door. Norm: you say... "If it’s a “right,†then why do you have to explain your actions? (if they are within reason.)" Technically, if it's a right, then it SHOULDN'T even require a permit to carry concealed. My buddy refuses to get a CC permit in his state because of that very reason. A right should NOT require a permit OR license. BTW...I used Wikidpedia because it was the first info on the Yahoo search engine to show up. But I have seen the same info posted in numerous gun magazines...Gun List being the most recent. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif On my original question....most Americans are so confused (thanks to HCI) that they think "assault rifles" sold in the USA are full auto weapons. Of course, REAL assault rifles ARE select fire weapons. But HCI uses the APPEARANCE of a weapon (evil black rifles, etc) and not the actual function of the weapon to get their misconceptions across. It's already been proven statistically that guns in citizens hands PREVENT crime. It would require a very well laid out campaign of FACTUAL information to successfully get the machinegun laws changed. I think it could be done. But what organization to look to to take on the task....I dunno. Maybe if a machinegun was used to wipe out a terrorist group that was about to blow up an important building? LOL...well I can fantasize can't I? Where is Bruce Willis when we need him??? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Dep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 QUOTE It's already been proven statistically that guns in citizens hands PREVENT crime. Deputy, do you think that means a rats a$$ to HCI or any other gun-grabber? HCI is happy to tell you how many children (18 and under) have died from being shot, but they don't want to tell us that aobut half these deaths are suicide. They don't want to tell the whole truth. That IS the problem. People either refuse to look at the facts or want to fabricate their own. The NFA register has made registered machineguns among the safest machines in the USA. That being known (and it was known in '86), why did they ban them....BECAUSE THEY WANTED TOO! They thought they were evil then and they think the same now. Education on the subject might change a few peoples (non-firearm enthusists) minds, but the general mindset in this country is that they are bad and evil and make people criminals and that will be hard to change. Maybe if the time comes when we are litteraly invaded and we (citizens) must fend for ourselves, the thinking might change. As for concelaed carry permits, there are tons of differences in most peoples minds between a pistol that shoots .45 ACP and a machinegun that shoots .45 ACP. As far as something being a right, there do need to be some controls. Without some controls, we would give HCI the ammo they need to really do us in. As for cities and states that just ban guns, I think they are violating the 2nd ammendment. People in NYC and Chicago need to protect themselves also. As for your original question: "Is there any chance the '86 ban will be overturned?", I say there is a less than 3% chance. MAYBE an amnesty, but it is doubtful. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif The simple truth is that it is just to politically incorrect for most to touch it. Maybe I'm wrong; I hope I am, but I just don't see it happening. I'm just being honest. OK...I'm through with this---> http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/soapbox.gif Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adlake Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 I was born and raised in Wisconsin and I'm so glad that I left that police state 20 years ago. I've got to tell you that the police and politicians in WI and Ill. are far too powerful and they run those states like Hitler era Germany. The police force is like the SS. I have a vivid memory from 35 years ago of a group of 5 police officers, giddy with the sence of power, acosting severely my brother and I after a pro sporting event when we were only trying to get some autographs. Shoving us around in a circle between the 5 officers and threatening us, I'll never forget it or forgive those bastards, these people who were supposed to "protect and defend", abusing their power with a couple of kids. What a joke, the people in WI and Ill are being "ruled" and they don't even know it for the most part. I would NEVER EVER consider moving back to that area, NEVER! The governor needs to be run out of town on a rail and the people need to grow a new set of balls and throw out the rest of the crooked goverment. Mike Hammer Mike, http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif I think I'll write you in at the next election for Governor-adlake (from Wisconsin.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimFromFL Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 I would like to think the government would look at the advantage of doing changing.... For example, the help it would provide to the economy: 1 - The increase in production of US manufacturing of Class III items 2 - The increase in production of ammo 3 - The increase in the number of $200 tax stamps (this helps the government) It all results in money back into the economy. I would also think it would decrease the prices and making it affordable for many more people to own which in turn increases the amount of money towards the above 3 items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted June 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 QUOTE (Norm @ Jun 28 2006, 04:07 PM) QUOTE It's already been proven statistically that guns in citizens hands PREVENT crime. As far as something being a right, there do need to be some controls. Without some controls, we would give HCI the ammo they need to really do us in. Norm Some controls...ahhhh Norm....this is the argument the gun regulators LOVE to use. Please don't fall prey to it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed AS LONG AS YOU CAN PASS CERTAIN TESTS AND REQUIREMENTS. And there is no proof that the testing and training have been of any benefit at all to intelligent use of the concealed weapon. It's PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY that is necessary and not licensing by the government. Think about it....were any cowboys in the old west licensed in order to responsibly carry their firearms? Don't be so willing to concede control of your personal RIGHTS to a potentially tyrannical government's rules and regulations. This has been done too many times in the past by too many other countries and has just led to more and more rules and regualtions and eventually....bans...for the sake of "safety of the majority". Dep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 Deputy, I feel that this is moving towards an argument, and I don't want that. All I am saying is that I don't want a criminal to have a gun. Do you? I would hope not. The reasonable question then is how would stop this from happening on the most basic level? Yes, it is true that cowboys bought guns with NO regulations at all. Even the first Thompsons were sold without restrictions. All I'm saying is that there must some some basic guidelines that all people, except those who truely shouldn't get guns, could easily pass. I think if you are NOT a criminal, you should be able to purchase and obtain a firearm at the time you purchase it. If you ARE criminal trying to buy a gun, you should not be able to buy a gun. This can only be done with some BASIC guidelines. Concealed carry is a different matter. If you can pass the background check (instant check) to purchase a gun, then you should be able to carry that gun for protection. Actually, if you can go buy a pistol and pass the background test, you can buy an NFA weapon considering you can get a CLEO letter and your state allows it. We may have to agree to disagree (just a little http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif ) on this matter. I hope no one thinks less of me for saying this, but it is what I think. Maybe this would be a good poll question? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/dry.gif Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Posted June 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 Norm: Good grief...sure didn't want to sound like an argument. I simply think the best gun laws are NO gun laws. Defining "criminal" is way to subjective in the present day and age. I don't like the idea of lumping a spousal abuser with a murderer or armed robber. Both are considered "criminals" as far as gun purchasing is concerned. Dep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce V 21/28 Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 Pro Second Amendent groups should adopt the tatics of the anti's. We should have pro gun legislators (if there are any) that are willing to attach pro gun "riders" to any piece of anti gun legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tash329 Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 What Bruce said. Will it happen? NEVER http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tash329 Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 (edited) Phil, from the point of the amount of states that permit CCW's these days, yes there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes with all the negative in the news anymore its hard to stay focused on the few good things happening around us. Edited June 29, 2006 by Tash329 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21 smoker Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 Now to further this discussion..check out Dan Shea`s "Sitrep" column in this months SAR...probably the one voice that will give us the skinny on the current ATF slant and future course on the NFA..... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 QUOTE You said California law allows people to buy machineguns? You have to get authorization from the California DOJ. It is nearly impossible to obtain. The only reason I can see for this exception is so well known movie-prop companies could buy them to make films. This is just a guess. Maybe this would be a good "crack in the system" for someone in CA to start a lawsuit. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif That is what happened in TN years ago (in regards to concealed carry). Twenty years ago, getting a CC permit in TN was difficult. You had to get the sherrif's permission and if he gave it to you, you had to get a $10,000 bond. A man sued the state saying that the sherrif's "opinion" to discriminating. The state agreed with him and said that if a person is not wanted, an ex-con, or judged insane (legally); then he must allow him/her to obtain the permit. Shortly after, the proccess was removed from the sherrif's office and was given to the state police. Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now