ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The thirteenth century. Or a Masonic lodge, if you believe the Masons.
post of the month.
__________________ "America's most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals, but those who sold us the perverted ideology of free market capitalism and globalization... they have dynamited the foundations of our society."
- Chris Hedges
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
You didn't say that machine guns are banned unless you have a special permit from Treasury. You said, and I quote "Sort of the like the National Firearms Act of '34, which banned machine guns in private hands."
Of course, it didn't ban machine guns in private hands. So you are wrong...again.
OMG OMG OMG!
Okay, let's not ban all guns in precisely the same way. Treat them all as we presently treat machine guns. I take it you're on-board?
Yes, a great victory. On a side clause describing the 1934 law, I incorrectly said it banned machine guns in private hands, when in fact it banned machine guns in private hands except by express permission from the Treasury Department.
The main point being, of course, is that it was passed with the support of the NRA.
Now then, I take it that your great victory in establishing that there was no ban in the '34 law extends to our present conversation.
Let's not introduce any bans. In exchange, let's have all gun ownership by special permission of the Treasury Department. This does not, I take it, violate your sensibilities, and should not violate those of the NRA.
Unless you're being extremely literal for one purpose, and intend to be very liberal with your idea of what's a "ban" for other purposes.
After all, you would still have the right to keep and bear arms, since no ban would be in effect.
Is this your position? Is this the NRA's position? If not, what has changed?
Yes, a great victory. On a side clause describing the 1934 law, I incorrectly said it banned machine guns in private hands, when in fact it banned machine guns in private hands except by express permission from the Treasury Department.
The main point being, of course, is that it was passed with the support of the NRA.
Now then, I take it that your great victory in establishing that there was no ban in the '34 law extends to our present conversation.
Let's not introduce any bans. In exchange, let's have all gun ownership by special permission of the Treasury Department. This does not, I take it, violate your sensibilities, and should not violate those of the NRA.
Unless you're being extremely literal for one purpose, and intend to be very liberal with your idea of what's a "ban" for other purposes.
After all, you would still have the right to keep and bear arms, since no ban would be in effect.
Is this your position? Is this the NRA's position? If not, what has changed?
PFnV
Actually it didn't ban automatic weapons at all (they were regulated). The Act generally stated that you needed to register them and to pay a tax. It wasn't like you had to hand in your weapons and then apply to get them back. You had your automatic weapons.....you filled out paperwork.....paid your tax.....you kept them.
I guess I don't understand your point about the NRA. So the NRA supported the 1934 legislation (which didn't ban automatic weapons) which applied to "gangster" weapons and you think that somehow applies to weapons that the average American gun owner uses today (80 years later) like the AR-15?
You want the Treasury department to register 310,000,000 guns? There are about 150,000 registered machine guns owned by private citizens. Do the math.....you want to register 2000 times the number of guns that are registered now? How many people do you plan on hiring to register 310,000,000 guns? How about the yearly transactions between gun owners that number close to 10 million?
BTW, you do know that only non-felons would be required to register their guns and not felons, right?
I think I'll pass on the registration, but thanks for offering.
You want the Treasury department to register 310,000,000 guns? There are about 150,000 registered machine guns owned by private citizens. Do the math.....you want to register 2000 times the number of guns that are registered now? How many people do you plan on hiring to register 310,000,000 guns? How about the yearly transactions between gun owners that number close to 10 million?
Well perhaps now you see some of the conservative point on social programs
... a good idea = more government employees to inflate the budget.
Why should felons be allowed to keep and bear arms? There are states where they're not allowed to vote. The chances that a felon's vote could repeat his felonious behavior must be lesser than the chances that a felon's firearm could.
Having dispensed with that particular red herring, it sounds as if you have no problem in concept with the "right to keep and bear arms" being mediated through the U.S. Treasure.
I've seen articles about the original 1934 text, and I've linked to the text of the most recent law that incorporated the 1934 law, and I've seen links on how the 34 law had to be "fixed" to be constitutionally sound.
Do you have a link to the effect that the 1934 law did not cause you to need special permission from Treasury to own a machine gun?
If not, it banned them in private hands except by special permission from the Treasury department. That is what everything I've seen on the subject says, pretty much from all sources.
Are you saying that there was no such provision in the 34 law, or are you making a semantic point, that if you could get the special permit, they're not banned?
And as a follow-up: you quote the number of firearms in the U.S. as a practical objection to the "non-banning" of all firearms. Do you have any objections on constitutional grounds, or is it "not a ban" -- and therefore perfectly okay -- similarly require government permission prior to possessing any firearm? Now that I think about it, you are required to get a license, aren't you? Does that apply to all 50 states? And you are required to register your gun. Seems like the existing infrastructure is in place to require more responsible behavior by gun owners, particular in regard to the whereabouts of said guns.
Oh and my point about the NRA is that in the past, they supported tighter gun control when it was clear that gun violence was out of hand. The 34 law worked, and its successors have worked. Gun violence is down from the heights of early in the last century. Yet we still have 11,000 gun murders per year, plus accidents, suicides, "justifiable" killings, etc. People have gotten sick of it, and I'm damn well one of them. It's unnecessary, as the experience of many nations makes clear.
When enough is enough, what does the NRA do now? They say we need more guns (and the devil take the cost of their utterly unworkable solutions.)
The NRA has nothing to do with the desires even of its own membership. They're a shill for gun manufacturers. Period. They were once a functioning "club" whose main purpose was education and training. Now they do those things as a beard.
16Likes
Re: Newest Religion: Gun Control
Linear Mode
