User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 12:52:48 PM EDT
[#1]
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:10:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:23:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:24:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guarantee everyone that owns an AR15/AK47 would buy a full auto if they didn't have to jump through the NFA hoops. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Thats so fucking stupid. Stop making people jump through hoops and then see if they become common usage. I guarantee everyone that owns an AR15/AK47 would buy a full auto if they didn't have to jump through the NFA hoops. Again common usage isn't applicable when access is restricted. Yes, because so many people bought Thompsons and Colt machine guns (1927 .30 cals and Monitors) and Maxim supressors prior to 1934 - when they could buy them through the mail and have the post man drop them off at their door. Auto-Ordnance barely sold enough Thompsons to keep the doors open. Are you comparing an era of real poverty to that of today's wealth?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:27:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. Yep. And without FOPA, the US civilian gun industry wouldn't have survived the next Democrat president. The ATF was killing dealers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:35:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? Unrecorded ammunition sales? Before FOPA ammunition required recorded sales. Mail / internet ammunition ordering? Buying a long gun in any state (where the sale is legal in both states)? Safe passage? And a bunch of changes to GCA '68 that really, really, really made things better for FFLs and gun buyers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:39:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And without FOPA, the US civilian gun industry wouldn't have survived the next Democrat president. The ATF was killing dealers. They still have killed off a bunch of kitchen-table FFLs, and can close down whatever dealer they want because they didn't cross every t and dot every i. Anti-2ndA states openly ignore the travel protections. They are still creating illegal registries. The only thing we really still have out of the deal is mail order ammo. ETA: and I guess out-of-state long guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:40:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thats so fucking stupid. Stop making people jump through hoops and then see if they become common usage. I guarantee everyone that owns an AR15/AK47 would buy a full auto if they didn't have to jump through the NFA hoops. Again common usage isn't applicable when access is restricted. Yes, because so many people bought Thompsons and Colt machine guns (1927 .30 cals and Monitors) and Maxim supressors prior to 1934 - when they could buy them through the mail and have the post man drop them off at their door. Auto-Ordnance barely sold enough Thompsons to keep the doors open. Are you comparing an era of real poverty to that of today's wealth? The 1920s were a period of prosperity like America had never seen before - and we haven't seen since. The difference between the Great Depression and the Endless Recession With a Jobless Recovery© is purely reporting. Today's "wealth" is inflated dollars bouyed up by the Fed and an artifical environment of free (0%) money for the banks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:43:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They still have killed off a bunch of kitchen-table FFLs, and can close down whatever dealer they want because they didn't cross every t and dot every i. Anti-2ndA states openly ignore the travel protections. They are still creating illegal registries. The only thing we really still have out of the deal is mail order ammo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And without FOPA, the US civilian gun industry wouldn't have survived the next Democrat president. The ATF was killing dealers. They still have killed off a bunch of kitchen-table FFLs, and can close down whatever dealer they want because they didn't cross every t and dot every i. Anti-2ndA states openly ignore the travel protections. They are still creating illegal registries. The only thing we really still have out of the deal is mail order ammo. The one compliance inspection a year language was huge. ATF could basically de facto shut down any dealer or manufacturer they didn't like by endless inspections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:45:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf As much as people hate to hear it, the right to buy a new full auto is chump change compared to where we might be today without FOPA. Given that most of the anti-gun legislative goals of the past 30 years have been aimed at undoing parts of FOPA, I'd say it was not only a good trade; but one I would do again today even knowing the outcome of the litigation to overturn the Hughes Amendment (which the NRA at the time was very optimistic about). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:46:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to answer for Bama, but I don't think so. I think there would be an uptick (in MG friendly states), but I think over time it would fade (but the Progressive Communist hysteria would be stratospheric). Absent he current demand for transferables, a Form 1 machine gun is an ammo-gobbling range toy that requires a Form 4 transfer process to sell. Why would I buy yours? I can make my own, then I have an ammo-gobbling range toy that requires a Form 4 transfer process to sell. And a 5320.20 to travel out of state with it (unless the NFA goes away too) And unless you have private land or something like NF or BLM public land to shoot on... The euphoria would die away and it would go back to being a niche in the shooting world. IF 18 USC § 922(o) went away and IF my county sheriff would issue me the state required MG permit and IF I had a place I could shoot full auto, I might Form 1 an AR lower, but I'd rather have another suppressor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's so such a small segment of the gun world. Getting more states to issue CCW permits, Shall Issue, shooting range and hunting preservation got way more done. Don't you think that would change IF the Hughes Amendment was overturned? Not to answer for Bama, but I don't think so. I think there would be an uptick (in MG friendly states), but I think over time it would fade (but the Progressive Communist hysteria would be stratospheric). Absent he current demand for transferables, a Form 1 machine gun is an ammo-gobbling range toy that requires a Form 4 transfer process to sell. Why would I buy yours? I can make my own, then I have an ammo-gobbling range toy that requires a Form 4 transfer process to sell. And a 5320.20 to travel out of state with it (unless the NFA goes away too) And unless you have private land or something like NF or BLM public land to shoot on... The euphoria would die away and it would go back to being a niche in the shooting world. IF 18 USC § 922(o) went away and IF my county sheriff would issue me the state required MG permit and IF I had a place I could shoot full auto, I might Form 1 an AR lower, but I'd rather have another suppressor. It's funny you mention that. Every "tactical" AR I own is an SBR I was invited to a class and started to go then I remembered I would have to get an approved 5320.20 to do so. Now I need to get a 16" for travel. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:54:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They still have killed off a bunch of kitchen-table FFLs, and can close down whatever dealer they want because they didn't cross every t and dot every i. Anti-2ndA states openly ignore the travel protections. They are still creating illegal registries. The only thing we really still have out of the deal is mail order ammo. ETA: and I guess out-of-state long guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And without FOPA, the US civilian gun industry wouldn't have survived the next Democrat president. The ATF was killing dealers. They still have killed off a bunch of kitchen-table FFLs, and can close down whatever dealer they want because they didn't cross every t and dot every i. Anti-2ndA states openly ignore the travel protections. They are still creating illegal registries. The only thing we really still have out of the deal is mail order ammo. ETA: and I guess out-of-state long guns. Without FOPA, they could shut off private sales entirely - and most FFLs too for that matter. Prior to FOPA there were two different judicial interpretations of "engaged in the business of selling firearms" in use. Both of them were VERY broad and could easily encompass not just gun shows; but internet sales and face-to-face transfers. The two legal interpetations were: " "dealer" means anyone who is engaged in any business of selling firearms, and that "business" is "that which occupies time, attention and labor for the purpose of livelihood or profit." "it considers persons to be dealers "[i]f they have guns on hand or are ready and able to procure them, in either case for the purpose of selling some or all of them to such persons as they might from time to time conclude to accept as customers" FOPA specifically carved an exemption for private sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:55:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again common usage isn't applicable when access is restricted. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thats so fucking stupid. Stop making people jump through hoops and then see if they become common usage. I guarantee everyone that owns an AR15/AK47 would buy a full auto if they didn't have to jump through the NFA hoops. Again common usage isn't applicable when access is restricted. Yes, because so many people bought Thompsons and Colt machine guns (1927 .30 cals and Monitors) and Maxim supressors prior to 1934 - when they could buy them through the mail and have the post man drop them off at their door. Auto-Ordnance barely sold enough Thompsons to keep the doors open. Are you comparing an era of real poverty to that of today's wealth? The 1920s were a period of prosperity like America had never seen before - and we haven't seen since. The difference between the Great Depression and the Endless Recession With a Jobless Recovery© is purely reporting. Today's "wealth" is inflated dollars bouyed up by the Fed and an artifical environment of free (0%) money for the banks. oh please. Guess all my great grandparents didn't get the memo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:55:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Limited Funds. If the NRA had more money they could fight more battles and bring about victories faster. Encourage as many folks as you can to join the NRA. My wife recently became a member and I'm doing the Easy Pay Life Membership right now. Make no mistake about it. The NRA is now firmly in our corner when it comes to defensive firearms and they are the best hope we have at effecting real change. Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:55:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. Along with the media was fanning the flames with cocaine cowboys having machine guns. They made it seem these were legally bought guns. Kind of like Fast & Furious with the media was designed to make it look like all the weapons in Mexico are coming from the US so they have an excuse to ban them here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 1:57:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unrecorded ammunition sales? Before FOPA ammunition required recorded sales. Mail / internet ammunition ordering? Buying a long gun in any state (where the sale is legal in both states)? Safe passage? And a bunch of changes to GCA '68 that really, really, really made things better for FFLs and gun buyers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How did the gun grabbers even get the idea for the Hughes amendment? Full auto was already such a small and obscure and highly regulated hobby and maybe one was ever used in a crime. How did it even get on their radar, usually some high profile event like Sandy Hook drives the gun grabbers so what was it for the Hughes Amendment? The Hughes Amendment was meant to be a poison pill to kill the NRA-supported 1986 FOPA bill. At that point, the Democrats had controlled Congress (and the House) for something like 30+ years of continuous control. FOPA had been introduced every session for the previous 7 sessions; but it died in Committee every time because the Committee chair wasn't going to help the NRA. So the bill's authors started a discharge petition to force a floor vote on the bill. There have been something like 2 successful discharge petitions in the entire history of the House and FOPA was one of them. The House Judiciary Committee had gotten lazy and had not drafted any alternate bill for FOPA (why bother since it had gone down 7 times already) and discharge petitions (as already noted) were not particularly successful historically. So when it got a floor vote, the Democrats had to scramble to find an amendment that the NRA would hate enough to kill the entire bill; but that a majority of House members (keep in mind it also took a majority of House members to do the discharge petition) would support. That is how the Hughes Amendment came about. The Dems thought that either the NRA would drop the bill and it would die in the Senate, or the briefly Republican majority Senate would strip the Amendment and it would go to a conference committee where they would get another chance to kill the entire bill. Instead the NRA swallowed the poison, thinking they would be able to beat it in court. What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? Unrecorded ammunition sales? Before FOPA ammunition required recorded sales. Mail / internet ammunition ordering? Buying a long gun in any state (where the sale is legal in both states)? Safe passage? And a bunch of changes to GCA '68 that really, really, really made things better for FFLs and gun buyers. Above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:18:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Limited Funds. If the NRA had more money they could fight more battles and bring about victories faster. Encourage as many folks as you can to join the NRA. My wife recently became a member and I'm doing the Easy Pay Life Membership right now. Make no mistake about it. The NRA is now firmly in our corner when it comes to defensive firearms and they are the best hope we have at effecting real change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:23:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Limited Funds. If the NRA had more money they could fight more battles and bring about victories faster. Encourage as many folks as you can to join the NRA. My wife recently became a member and I'm doing the Easy Pay Life Membership right now. Make no mistake about it. The NRA is now firmly in our corner when it comes to defensive firearms and they are the best hope we have at effecting real change. Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. "The groups opposing expanded background checks, by contrast, have raised only $1.3 million. Of that, the NRA has contributed $191,000 to a Washington State affiliate. That group has spent $100,000 on advertising and $31,000 on billboards, according to PDC filings. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/11/washington-gun-rights-advocates-wonder-where-is-the-nra/ And you know, before blaming the NRA in whatever feud you think they have with SAF, you might want to consider that the source is a guy who supported the NRA-opposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Background Check bill in 2013. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:24:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Limited Funds. If the NRA had more money they could fight more battles and bring about victories faster. Encourage as many folks as you can to join the NRA. My wife recently became a member and I'm doing the Easy Pay Life Membership right now. Make no mistake about it. The NRA is now firmly in our corner when it comes to defensive firearms and they are the best hope we have at effecting real change. Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. Shut your whore mouth, troll. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:37:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The groups opposing expanded background checks, by contrast, have raised only $1.3 million. Of that, the NRA has contributed $191,000 to a Washington State affiliate. That group has spent $100,000 on advertising and $31,000 on billboards, according to PDC filings. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/11/washington-gun-rights-advocates-wonder-where-is-the-nra And you know, before blaming the NRA in whatever feud you think they have with SAF, you might want to consider that the source is a guy who supported the NRA-opposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Background Check bill in 2013. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Limited Funds. If the NRA had more money they could fight more battles and bring about victories faster. Encourage as many folks as you can to join the NRA. My wife recently became a member and I'm doing the Easy Pay Life Membership right now. Make no mistake about it. The NRA is now firmly in our corner when it comes to defensive firearms and they are the best hope we have at effecting real change. Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. "The groups opposing expanded background checks, by contrast, have raised only $1.3 million. Of that, the NRA has contributed $191,000 to a Washington State affiliate. That group has spent $100,000 on advertising and $31,000 on billboards, according to PDC filings. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/11/washington-gun-rights-advocates-wonder-where-is-the-nra And you know, before blaming the NRA in whatever feud you think they have with SAF, you might want to consider that the source is a guy who supported the NRA-opposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Background Check bill in 2013. ROFL, yea I support the guy that poison pilled the shit out of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Bill with a ton of pro-gun shit so that it would never pass. You realize both SCOTUS (Heller vs DC and Macdonald vs Chicago) victories are because of the SAF? OMG thats SOOOOO much money, except in 1997 with trigger locks on Initiative-676. the NRA threw 3+ million dollars into defeating it. Yet now that something much more odious and bad is on the table they're no where to be found. They've spent some money on signs, we're greatful. Some TV ads would be great so that Bloombergs group isn't running totally unopposed. Also if it's all in my head maybe you can explain why the NRA has spent so little here on a major anti-gun measure but has spent millions elsewhere. We're being hung out to dry. NRA spending The NRA has FLATLY REFUSED to support the pro-gun initiative. Quoted:
snip Lol I think those of us on the ground fighting this battle in washington state have a little bit more of an idea of the NRA's involvement than some cutesy little page that tells all gun owners what they already know and costs the NRA very little to throw up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:48:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ROFL, yea I support the guy that poison pilled the shit out of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Bill with a ton of pro-gun shit so that it would never pass. You realize both SCOTUS (Heller vs DC and Macdonald vs Chicago) victories are because of the SAF? OMG thats SOOOOO much money, except in 1997 with trigger locks on Initiative-676. the NRA threw 3+ million dollars into defeating it. Also if it's all in my head maybe you can explain why the NRA has spent so little here on a major anti-gun measure but has spent millions elsewhere. We're being hung out to dry. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/guns-2014-elections-nra-bloomberg-gabby-giffords Yet now that something much more odious and bad is on the table they're no where to be found. They've spent some money on signs, we're greatful. Some TV ads would be great so that Bloombergs group isn't running totally unopposed. The NRA has FLATLY REFUSED to support the pro-gun initiative. Lol I think those of us on the ground fighting this battle in washington state have a little bit more of an idea of the NRA's involvement than some cutesy little page that tells all gun owners what they already know and costs the NRA very little to throw up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Limited Funds. If the NRA had more money they could fight more battles and bring about victories faster. Encourage as many folks as you can to join the NRA. My wife recently became a member and I'm doing the Easy Pay Life Membership right now. Make no mistake about it. The NRA is now firmly in our corner when it comes to defensive firearms and they are the best hope we have at effecting real change. Lol. You think the NRA gives a fuck about anything other than fund raising? They are so petty in their quarrel with SAF and Alan Gottlieb that they haven't even endorsed the pro-gun initiative in washington state. And have barely lifted a finger to help us defeat the anti-gun one. Not one TV ad financed by them. They've provided some signs, and made a youtube video, bless their hearts. Fuck the NRA. "The groups opposing expanded background checks, by contrast, have raised only $1.3 million. Of that, the NRA has contributed $191,000 to a Washington State affiliate. That group has spent $100,000 on advertising and $31,000 on billboards, according to PDC filings. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said." Source: NRA Spending And you know, before blaming the NRA in whatever feud you think they have with SAF, you might want to consider that the source is a guy who supported the NRA-opposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Background Check bill in 2013. ROFL, yea I support the guy that poison pilled the shit out of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Bill with a ton of pro-gun shit so that it would never pass. You realize both SCOTUS (Heller vs DC and Macdonald vs Chicago) victories are because of the SAF? OMG thats SOOOOO much money, except in 1997 with trigger locks on Initiative-676. the NRA threw 3+ million dollars into defeating it. Also if it's all in my head maybe you can explain why the NRA has spent so little here on a major anti-gun measure but has spent millions elsewhere. We're being hung out to dry. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/guns-2014-elections-nra-bloomberg-gabby-giffords Yet now that something much more odious and bad is on the table they're no where to be found. They've spent some money on signs, we're greatful. Some TV ads would be great so that Bloombergs group isn't running totally unopposed. The NRA has FLATLY REFUSED to support the pro-gun initiative. Quoted:
snip Lol I think those of us on the ground fighting this battle in washington state have a little bit more of an idea of the NRA's involvement than some cutesy little page that tells all gun owners what they already know and costs the NRA very little to throw up. NRA lobbies at the Federal level. They only have ~5 million active members. If just half of the 80 million gun owners in the US joined the NRA, they could could be more involved in state battles. It's ridiculous to expect the NRA white knight to sweep in and jizz cash all over your state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:49:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf As much as people hate to hear it, the right to buy a new full auto is chump change compared to where we might be today without FOPA. Given that most of the anti-gun legislative goals of the past 30 years have been aimed at undoing parts of FOPA, I'd say it was not only a good trade; but one I would do again today even knowing the outcome of the litigation to overturn the Hughes Amendment (which the NRA at the time was very optimistic about). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What was so good about FOPA that was worth sacrificing the right to buy new full auto? The NRA fucked us on that deal. So we can have gun shows with overpriced shit? http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf As much as people hate to hear it, the right to buy a new full auto is chump change compared to where we might be today without FOPA. Given that most of the anti-gun legislative goals of the past 30 years have been aimed at undoing parts of FOPA, I'd say it was not only a good trade; but one I would do again today even knowing the outcome of the litigation to overturn the Hughes Amendment (which the NRA at the time was very optimistic about). Yep. Our side is often all about the toys, and ignore the incidious stuff that isn't a direct ban. For example, Clinton's tort attacks and Bush's tort reform are hardly noticed. And pre-'86 the government did not acknowledge any right to buy MGs. The debate over Hughes is a debate over what they will allow us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:52:48 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NRA lobbies at the Federal level. They only have ~5 million active members. If just half of the 80 million gun owners in the US joined the NRA, they could could be more involved in state battles. It's ridiculous to expect the NRA white knight to sweep in and jizz cash all over your state. Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:56:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ROFL, yea I support the guy that poison pilled the shit out of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Bill with a ton of pro-gun shit so that it would never pass. You realize both SCOTUS (Heller vs DC and Macdonald vs Chicago) victories are because of the SAF? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"The groups opposing expanded background checks, by contrast, have raised only $1.3 million. Of that, the NRA has contributed $191,000 to a Washington State affiliate. That group has spent $100,000 on advertising and $31,000 on billboards, according to PDC filings. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/11/washington-gun-rights-advocates-wonder-where-is-the-nra/ And you know, before blaming the NRA in whatever feud you think they have with SAF, you might want to consider that the source is a guy who supported the NRA-opposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Background Check bill in 2013. ROFL, yea I support the guy that poison pilled the shit out of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Bill with a ton of pro-gun shit so that it would never pass. You realize both SCOTUS (Heller vs DC and Macdonald vs Chicago) victories are because of the SAF? 1. Gottlieb didn't "poison pill" Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. The comments Gottlieb is making refer to the actual, initial bill that Toomey and Manchin co-sponsored and that Chuck Schumer voted for - so did Diane Feinstein, so did every single anti-gun fuck in the Senate. In case you don't understand the concept, the purpose of a "poison pill" is to cause a bill to fail by including something so awful in the bill that its supporters refuse to pass the bill. In this case, the supporters of the bill continued to support it 100%. They were perfectly fine with passing it - and why shouldn't they be since they outfoxed Gottlieb on that deal. Here are the votes on Schumer-Toomey-Manchin if you want to refresh your obviously faulty memory. 2. Gottlieb's support of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin was so brilliant that after the flaws were pointed out by people like Dave Kopel and David Hardy, Gottlieb pulled his support for the bill you claim is full of pro-gun stuff. 3. The Heller lawsuit was funded entirely by Robert Levy (of the CATO Institute) in his personal capacity. SAF's contribution to that lawsuit was to file an Amicus Brief at the Circuit Court level and Supreme Court level. At the time of Heller, SAF was pursuing a much narrower line of attack using Bill Gameros (the prosecuting attorney in Emerson) as their attorney. AFTER Heller, SAF and Gura began working together on McDonald. In summary, you keep making allegations that are factually incorrect, which tends to make me take you less seriously on your other complaints since it gives the impression that you are uninformed on the subject you are commenting on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 2:59:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Gottlieb didn't "poison pill" Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. The comments Gottlieb is making refer to the actual, initial bill that Toomey and Manchin co-sponsored and that Chuck Schumer voted for - so did Diane Feinstein, so did every single anti-gun fuck in the Senate. In case you don't understand the concept, the purpose of a "poison pill" is to cause a bill to fail by including something so awful in the bill that its supporters refuse to pass the bill. In this case, the supporters of the bill continued to support it 100%. They were perfectly fine with passing it - and why shouldn't they be since they outfoxed Gottlieb on that deal. Here are the votes on Schumer-Toomey-Manchin if you want to refresh your obviously faulty memory. 2. Gottlieb's support of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin was so brilliant that after the flaws were pointed out by people like Dave Kopel and David Hardy, Gottlieb pulled his support for the bill you claim is full of pro-gun stuff. 3. The Heller lawsuit was funded entirely by Robert Levy (of the CATO Institute) in his personal capacity. SAF's contribution to that lawsuit was to file an Amicus Brief at the Circuit Court level and Supreme Court level. At the time of Heller, SAF was pursuing a much narrower line of attack using Bill Gameros (the prosecuting attorney in Emerson) as their attorney. AFTER Heller, SAF and Gura began working together on McDonald. In summary, you keep making allegations that are factually incorrect, which tends to make me take you less seriously on your other complaints since it gives the impression that you are uninformed on the subject you are commenting on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The groups opposing expanded background checks, by contrast, have raised only $1.3 million. Of that, the NRA has contributed $191,000 to a Washington State affiliate. That group has spent $100,000 on advertising and $31,000 on billboards, according to PDC filings. Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/11/washington-gun-rights-advocates-wonder-where-is-the-nra/ And you know, before blaming the NRA in whatever feud you think they have with SAF, you might want to consider that the source is a guy who supported the NRA-opposed Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Background Check bill in 2013. ROFL, yea I support the guy that poison pilled the shit out of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin Bill with a ton of pro-gun shit so that it would never pass. You realize both SCOTUS (Heller vs DC and Macdonald vs Chicago) victories are because of the SAF? 1. Gottlieb didn't "poison pill" Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. The comments Gottlieb is making refer to the actual, initial bill that Toomey and Manchin co-sponsored and that Chuck Schumer voted for - so did Diane Feinstein, so did every single anti-gun fuck in the Senate. In case you don't understand the concept, the purpose of a "poison pill" is to cause a bill to fail by including something so awful in the bill that its supporters refuse to pass the bill. In this case, the supporters of the bill continued to support it 100%. They were perfectly fine with passing it - and why shouldn't they be since they outfoxed Gottlieb on that deal. Here are the votes on Schumer-Toomey-Manchin if you want to refresh your obviously faulty memory. 2. Gottlieb's support of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin was so brilliant that after the flaws were pointed out by people like Dave Kopel and David Hardy, Gottlieb pulled his support for the bill you claim is full of pro-gun stuff. 3. The Heller lawsuit was funded entirely by Robert Levy (of the CATO Institute) in his personal capacity. SAF's contribution to that lawsuit was to file an Amicus Brief at the Circuit Court level and Supreme Court level. At the time of Heller, SAF was pursuing a much narrower line of attack using Bill Gameros (the prosecuting attorney in Emerson) as their attorney. AFTER Heller, SAF and Gura began working together on McDonald. In summary, you keep making allegations that are factually incorrect, which tends to make me take you less seriously on your other complaints since it gives the impression that you are uninformed on the subject you are commenting on. TL;DR Do some digging into the issue in WA state instead of blindly swinging off the NRA's nuts and you will see that we are being hung out to dry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:01:03 PM EDT
[#26]
for the NRA to work to repeal hughes would be a great idea, although I would probably never get a full auto anyway.
but I hope they can just stay on track, one more libtard on the supreme court and we might not have any firearms in ten years, much less full auto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:02:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. So a national organization spends more money on fights in red and light blue states where they might actually win, instead of pissing it away on deep blue moonbat country? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:03:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NRA lobbies at the Federal level. They only have ~5 million active members. If just half of the 80 million gun owners in the US joined the NRA, they could could be more involved in state battles. It's ridiculous to expect the NRA white knight to sweep in and jizz cash all over your state. Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. Wait a second, earlier, you were bitching that the NRA was only concerned about fund raising. Now you are complaining that the NRA has spent millions in a midterm election; but they just haven't spent as much as you think they should in Washington? Do you see how those two complaints seem contradictory? Did you realize that Bloomberg alone, committed $50 million to these elections? That would be roughly $18 million more than the NRA spent during the 2012 Presidential election year to win a midterm election. Did you also know that the NRA itself is forbidden by its corporate charter and U.S. law from engaging in lobbying and that the only money that can be used for those activities has to come from the NRA-PVF or NRA-ILA? And yet the NRA has spent $12.5 million in just 5 states according to your figures in a midterm election. So from my perspective, it looks like the NRA's campaigning arms are fighting very hard to win elections and your major complaint with them is that they don't want to commit more money to Washington? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:05:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NRA lobbies at the Federal level. They only have ~5 million active members. If just half of the 80 million gun owners in the US joined the NRA, they could could be more involved in state battles. It's ridiculous to expect the NRA white knight to sweep in and jizz cash all over your state. Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. NRA has limited resources because most gun owners are cheapskate douchebags. Why should they blow their wad on a deep blue state? They get better bang for their buck in red and purple states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:09:46 PM EDT
[#30]
I feel like there will be a push for MG legalization in the next 15-20 years. Now isn't the time; even with the gun culture growing vastly, there's not enough support to get MGs legalized. As others have said, there's also more important issues for the NRA to address.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, considering the fact that they weren't exactly common when they were only a $200 tax stamp away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's so such a small segment of the gun world. Getting more states to issue CCW permits, Shall Issue, shooting range and hunting preservation got way more done. lol. That kind of sounds like the gun grabbers. Could it be that it's small cuz they are hard to get? No, considering the fact that they weren't exactly common when they were only a $200 tax stamp away. To be fair, the gun culture has changed. Many, many, many more people are into military-styled firearms, especially people in the 18-40 age group, whereas my Grandpa doesn't even care to own a semi-automatic rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:12:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NRA lobbies at the Federal level. They only have ~5 million active members. If just half of the 80 million gun owners in the US joined the NRA, they could could be more involved in state battles. It's ridiculous to expect the NRA white knight to sweep in and jizz cash all over your state. Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. You can toss lot of money way on an issue. If it has not chance of passing why spend the dollars when it can be spent some place else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:14:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
for the NRA to work to repeal hughes would be a great idea, although I would probably never get a full auto anyway. but I hope they can just stay on track, one more libtard on the supreme court and we might not have any firearms in ten years, much less full auto. The only way we are getting machine guns back is to win congress and put a progun person like Perry or Cruz in the Whitehouse. We have to control both houses and the whitehouse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:15:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Lol deep blue moonbat territory.
We may tend to swing blue on congressional elections but Washington is ordinarily a VERY pro-gun state. One of the ORIGINAL shall-issues and better CCW laws than most states. Only thing we don't have yet is MG's and SBS, but we've made strides on NFA in the last 3 years. Washington is kind of an odd duck when it comes to gun politics there's a huge liberal-tarian precedent to rejecting shit like this, but the other side is being allowed to openly spread lies about whats in their initiative, and we don't have the money to fight it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:15:23 PM EDT
[#34]
This thread has made me wonder:
Is there data available for NRA membership by state? I wonder which states have the highest/lowest percentage of their population as NRA members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:15:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To be fair, the gun culture has changed. Many, many, many more people are into military-styled firearms, especially people in the 18-40 age group, whereas my Grandpa doesn't even care to own a semi-automatic rifle. People love to talk about violent video games being so bad, but when people grow up enjoying M-16s and AK-47s only to find out they can't own one later on in life because the government said so, it influences them. Not to mention the huge strides made regarding carry over the last 20 years. We're experiencing set backs in a few areas, but the national trend is positive for the first time in a very long time. Growing and supporting the NRA is instrumental to keeping that trend going. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:16:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TL;DR Do some digging into the issue in WA state instead of blindly swinging off the NRA's nuts and you will see that we are being hung out to dry. Nothing is quite so charming as admitting you don't know what the fuck you are talking about with a TL;DR and then restating the same thing you already said. It makes me feel like we are really close man. Having said that, the NRA is a national organization. They have a lot of battles to fight and they apparently don't think the one you are fighting is worthy of more resources. I certainly understand why that would upset you. It is one of many reasons why I always tell people to support their state organization first and then the NRYou think that $500k pisses you off? Think about how the residents of Colorado are going to be pissed if that $500k ends up making the difference in whether Hickenlooper and Udall get the boot and I-594 passes anyway. There are a lot of close fights and only so much money to go around. More members = more money to go around; or you know, we could bitch about not having enough resources and cuss the organization for the way it spends those resources and hope that somehow magically creates more members and resources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:28:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread has made me wonder: Is there data available for NRA membership by state? I wonder which states have the highest/lowest percentage of their population as NRA members. Not that I've found. NRA comped a lot of temporary memberships to lapsed members during the 2008 campaign so they could claim 4 million membership. They're supposedly up to 5 million now, which I can believe due to the time it takes to renew a membership. I just recently received my box of swag from my 4th of July donation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:36:14 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't you think that would change IF the Hughes Amendment was overturned? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because it's so such a small segment of the gun world. Getting more states to issue CCW permits, Shall Issue, shooting range and hunting preservation got way more done. Don't you think that would change IF the Hughes Amendment was overturned? Select fire ARs? Absolutely - why buy semi only if you can have select fire for a couple $ more - or even the same price. "Real" MGs (belt fed) not so much. I'd also guess most people would use that "auto" position two or three times, then go back to semi. Cost of ammo is a consideration when you're paying for it yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:00:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thats so fucking stupid. Stop making people jump through hoops and then see if they become common usage. I guarantee everyone that owns an AR15/AK47 would buy a full auto if they didn't have to jump through the NFA hoops. Again common usage isn't applicable when access is restricted. Yes, because so many people bought Thompsons and Colt machine guns (1927 .30 cals and Monitors) and Maxim supressors prior to 1934 - when they could buy them through the mail and have the post man drop them off at their door. Auto-Ordnance barely sold enough Thompsons to keep the doors open. Are you comparing an era of real poverty to that of today's wealth? The 1920s were a period of prosperity like America had never seen before - and we haven't seen since. The difference between the Great Depression and the Endless Recession With a Jobless Recovery© is purely reporting. Today's "wealth" is inflated dollars bouyed up by the Fed and an artifical environment of free (0%) money for the banks. oh please. Guess all my great grandparents didn't get the memo. He lived through it. You need to really learn about the happy face economy we have today. In the 1970s we were bombarded with news about inflation, today we have rampant inflation but we dont hear a word about it. How many millions have been added to food stamps and welfare under the marvelous economic recovery our hstoric President, Barack Hussein Obama has wrought? How many millions have stopped looking for work under the marvelous economic recovery our hstoric President, Barack Hussein Obama has wrought? We are in straits as dire as the 1930s, but somehow Wall Street, supported by a flood of free money from the Fed to the investment banks (which weren't allowed in 1929) is roaring to new heights. But, please, wear your rose colored glasses and think that the 1920s were a period of abject poverty or that today is a time of unimagined wealth as we've never seen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:07:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NRA has limited resources because most gun owners are cheapskate douchebags. Why should they blow their wad on a deep blue state? They get better bang for their buck in red and purple states. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: NRA lobbies at the Federal level. They only have ~5 million active members. If just half of the 80 million gun owners in the US joined the NRA, they could could be more involved in state battles. It's ridiculous to expect the NRA white knight to sweep in and jizz cash all over your state. Except they are involved in state battles, just not WA. They've spent 5 million in NC and CO, 4mil in iowa, 3 mll in AR. But to defeat an actual anti-gun measure in WA.... less than 500k. NRA has limited resources because most gun owners are cheapskate douchebags. Why should they blow their wad on a deep blue state? They get better bang for their buck in red and purple states. And too many gun owners are cheapskate douchebags that always have time, effort and money to spend perpetuating bullshit about the NRA being some sort of secret Illuminati enemy of gun owners instead of adding their strength to it's membership. Washington gun owners need to step up hard and fast for their own state and be glad of every single dime they get from out of state. Discipline wins the fight. The antis know that and march forward united in purpose while gun owners argue about everything. Get in the fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:09:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol deep blue moonbat territory. We may tend to swing blue on congressional elections but Washington is ordinarily a VERY pro-gun state. One of the ORIGINAL shall-issues and better CCW laws than most states. Only thing we don't have yet is MG's and SBS, but we've made strides on NFA in the last 3 years. Washington is kind of an odd duck when it comes to gun politics there's a huge liberal-tarian precedent to rejecting shit like this, but the other side is being allowed to openly spread lies about whats in their initiative, and we don't have the money to fight it. People who vote Democrat get what they vote for. Democrat Communist politicans vote the rigid party line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:25:13 PM EDT
[#42]
They had other fish to fry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:41:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Back when you could buy new machine guns more freely the market was very small. The ONLY person I knew who even owned a machine gun was my dad. The young guys of today cannot even imagine what it was like in the 80's. Very few states had CCW laws, most that did had some jump through processes that basically only the politically connected could get them. While it is not perfect and I would like to see the machine gun ban reversed the advancement of gun rights legislation and the prevention of new laws restricting firearms at the federal level is a direct result of the NRA's efforts. l o l Right. All the people annoying their representatives after the kids got slaughtered didn't compare to piers shitty speech, and I'm sure heller case would have never made it through without them jumping on their coat tails at the end. I was too young at the time, but I'm willing to bet the female layer that argued against a permaban in the 90's probably did it more so without the NRAs help. It's also funny you bring up the CCW, because again it was someone else that started and pushed that to pass, like heller(not the NRA). "don't stop believing" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's so such a small segment of the gun world. Getting more states to issue CCW permits, Shall Issue, shooting range and hunting preservation got way more done. lol. That kind of sounds like the gun grabbers. Could it be that it's small cuz they are hard to get? Back when you could buy new machine guns more freely the market was very small. The ONLY person I knew who even owned a machine gun was my dad. The young guys of today cannot even imagine what it was like in the 80's. Very few states had CCW laws, most that did had some jump through processes that basically only the politically connected could get them. While it is not perfect and I would like to see the machine gun ban reversed the advancement of gun rights legislation and the prevention of new laws restricting firearms at the federal level is a direct result of the NRA's efforts. l o l Right. All the people annoying their representatives after the kids got slaughtered didn't compare to piers shitty speech, and I'm sure heller case would have never made it through without them jumping on their coat tails at the end. I was too young at the time, but I'm willing to bet the female layer that argued against a permaban in the 90's probably did it more so without the NRAs help. It's also funny you bring up the CCW, because again it was someone else that started and pushed that to pass, like heller(not the NRA). "don't stop believing" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:57:03 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, considering the fact that they weren't exactly common when they were only a $200 tax stamp away. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because it's so such a small segment of the gun world. Getting more states to issue CCW permits, Shall Issue, shooting range and hunting preservation got way more done. lol. That kind of sounds like the gun grabbers. Could it be that it's small cuz they are hard to get? No, considering the fact that they weren't exactly common when they were only a $200 tax stamp away. See how that works? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:59:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Compare it to the cost of an 8 ball of blow. It ain't that much. At any rate, this question has been addressed by Justice Scalia during Heller oral arguments. Pre-86 MG sales weren't sufficient to put them in common usage, even considering the tax. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: $200 was a lot more money back then In the 80s? Not really. Using the CPI Inflation Calculator, $200 in 1980 would have the same buying power as $577.75 today. $434.36 in 1986 if you wanted to wait until the last minute. Compare it to the cost of an 8 ball of blow. It ain't that much. At any rate, this question has been addressed by Justice Scalia during Heller oral arguments. Pre-86 MG sales weren't sufficient to put them in common usage, even considering the tax. They were in the common usage before tax stamps with an adjusted value of $3000+ were enacted in the 1930s
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
