Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/12/2013 7:05:34 PM EST
So I read a long article in the NYT (please, don't start - it is after all good to know the enemy's party line) tonight about the power of the NRA and it says that WLP was responsible for the MG ban in 1986 - that he used it as a concession/compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

Anybody know anything about the history of this lobbying side of the FOPA and the MG ban?
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:26:06 PM EST
Sounds like typical NYT revisionism.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:30:42 PM EST
Larry Pratt has bigger balls than Wayne LaPierre, I wish he was the head of the NRA.
Won't go any further because this site is super-pro NRA and i don't want to get raped for marching out of step.

You're looking for the wrong thing. research the hughes amendment and you'll get alot more information then just reading about FOPA.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:45:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
So I read a long article in the NYT (please, don't start - it is after all good to know the enemy's party line) tonight about the power of the NRA and it says that WLP was responsible for the MG ban in 1986 - that he used it as a concession/compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

Anybody know anything about the history of this lobbying side of the FOPA and the MG ban?
View Quote


Oh Yeah, because, Sen.Hughes (D,NJ) was totally in WLP's pocket, and he rigged the vote count too:

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF
A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED

132 Cong.Rec. H1741-06 Page 16 of 31

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is read, I would like to know if the amendment
was one of those printed in the RECORD prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether his amendment
has been printed in the RECORD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in the RECORD, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has it been printed in the RECORD by Mr. HUGHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it is not required that the sponsor of the amendment have it printed
in the RECORD.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the amendment as amended, offered by Mr. VOLKMER as a
substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended:
Section 102 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended-
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking out "and";
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(9) by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following:
"(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess
a machinegun.
"(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to-
"(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any
department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
"(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the
date this subsection takes effect.".
Section 110 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended by adding at the end the following:
(c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request that the amendment be
considerd as read and printed in the RECORD. I ask my colleagues, in all fairness and rationality-we
only have 3 minutes left-to give me an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regular order and reserving the right to objectâ€"â€"
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of
the amendment. I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey moves that the
Committee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr.
HUGHES>.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12, as
follows:
<Roll No. 73>


AYES-124
Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Aspin Atkins Barnes Bates Beilenson Bennett Berman
Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Cooper
Coyne Crockett Dellums Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA)
Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Garcia Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez
Gordon Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur
Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA)
Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McKinney Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller
(WA) Mineta Moakley Moody Morrison (CT) Mrazek Oakar Owens Porter Price Rangel Rodino Roe
Rostenkowski Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz
Spratt St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky
Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Yates


NOES-298
Alexander Andrews Applegate Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Barnard Bartlett Barton Bateman Bedell
Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco Boucher Breaux
Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan
Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho
Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Coughlin Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer
Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell DioGuardi
Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK)
Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin
Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gradison Gray (IL) Gregg
Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon
Hiler Hillis Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones
(NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer
Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd
Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL)
Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath
McHugh McKernan McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (OH) Mitchell Molinari Mollohan Monson
Montgomery Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson
Nowak Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Panetta Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Pepper Perkins
Petri Pickle Pursell Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson
Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schneider
Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen
Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH)
Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang
Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas
(GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley
Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Wylie Yatron Young (AK) Young
(FL) Young (MO) Zschau

NOT VOTING-12
Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O'Brien Schulze Stokes Wright

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B769hyKWckIHOGU3OWQ2ODQtMjM1YS00Njg2LTg3MjEt­OGJiNzFiNGJiZDgz/preview?pli=1&hl=en
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:53:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
So I read a long article in the NYT (please, don't start - it is after all good to know the enemy's party line) tonight about the power of the NRA and it says that WLP was responsible for the MG ban in 1986 - that he used it as a concession/compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

Anybody know anything about the history of this lobbying side of the FOPA and the MG ban?
View Quote


Not exactly the case.

The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act had a bunch of good things in it. Allowed mail order ammo, did away with the ammo sales record keeping requirement, addressed ATF abuses of FFL holders, protected you form prosecution while traveling through non-gun-friendly cites/states. Some of these provisioned have ended up as a net benefit....like mail order ammo sales....others not so much like the traveling protection clause. (god help you if you are found with an AR traveling though NYC)

The democrats in power at the time decided the best way to sink the FOPA bill was to add a poison pill amendment which was authored by William Hughes (D-NJ) and which banned the sale of post May 86 machineguns to civilians. This was brought to a voice vote in the middle of the night by the infamous "Tax Cheat" Charlie Rangle Dem from -NY presiding as Chairman. Rangle refused to take a recorded vote and "passed" the Huges amendment on just a sham voice vote. You can find the actual video proceeding from CSPAN on youtube where the "Neahs" outnumber the Yeahs but he gaveled and passed it anyway.

Why this provision was not stripped off in the Senate version I am not sure. The is one mystery that has always alluded me.

Ultimately when the bill got to Reagans desk the NRA supposedly urged him to pass it with the poison pill anyway, believing that provision would be stripped out in court later. (which obviously never happened). As to exactly what the NRA lobbied or didn't lobby Reagan to do I can't say.

I will say I am pretty sure the NRA certainly didn't come up with the idea of adding the Hughes Amendment to FOPA but conversely also didn't appear willing to throw the whole FOPA bill away because of Hughes Amendment either. Hence why many folks believe that the NRA sold out machinegun owners because they believe the NRA could have opposed the whole bill and it would have never been signed into law and then theoretically congress come back later and try and pass a clean bill. The NRA has also never done anything to help get it repealed in the courts either.






Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:57:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jbntex:


Not exactly the case.

The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act had a bunch of good things in it. Allowed mail order ammo, did away with the ammo sales record keeping requirement, addressed ATF abuses of FFL holders, protected you form prosecution while traveling through non-gun-friendly cites/states. Some of these provisioned have ended up as a net benefit....like mail order ammo sales....others not so much like the traveling protection clause. (god help you if you are found with an AR traveling though NYC)

The democrats in power at the time decided the best way to sink the FOPA bill was to add a poison pill amendment which was authored by William Hughes (D-NJ) and which banned the sale of post May 86 machineguns to civilians. This was brought to a voice vote in the middle of the night by the infamous "Tax Cheat" Charlie Rangle Dem from -NY presiding as Chairman. Rangle refused to take a recorded vote and "passed" the Huges amendment on just a sham voice vote. You can find the actual video proceeding from CSPAN on youtube where the "Neahs" outnumber the Yeahs but he gaveled and passed it anyway.

Why this provision was not stripped off in the Senate version I am not sure. The is one mystery that has always alluded me.

Ultimately when the bill got to Reagans desk the NRA supposedly urged him to pass it with the poison pill anyway, believing that provision would be stripped out in court later. (which obviously never happened). As to exactly what the NRA lobbied or didn't lobby Reagan to do I can't say.

I will say I am pretty sure the NRA certainly didn't come up with the idea of adding the Hughes Amendment to FOPA but conversely also didn't appear willing to throw the whole FOPA bill away because of Hughes Amendment either. Hence why many folks believe that the NRA sold out machinegun owners because they believe the NRA could have opposed the whole bill and it would have never been signed into law and then theoretically congress come back later and try and pass a clean bill. The NRA has also never done anything to help get it repealed in the courts either.






View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jbntex:
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
So I read a long article in the NYT (please, don't start - it is after all good to know the enemy's party line) tonight about the power of the NRA and it says that WLP was responsible for the MG ban in 1986 - that he used it as a concession/compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

Anybody know anything about the history of this lobbying side of the FOPA and the MG ban?


Not exactly the case.

The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act had a bunch of good things in it. Allowed mail order ammo, did away with the ammo sales record keeping requirement, addressed ATF abuses of FFL holders, protected you form prosecution while traveling through non-gun-friendly cites/states. Some of these provisioned have ended up as a net benefit....like mail order ammo sales....others not so much like the traveling protection clause. (god help you if you are found with an AR traveling though NYC)

The democrats in power at the time decided the best way to sink the FOPA bill was to add a poison pill amendment which was authored by William Hughes (D-NJ) and which banned the sale of post May 86 machineguns to civilians. This was brought to a voice vote in the middle of the night by the infamous "Tax Cheat" Charlie Rangle Dem from -NY presiding as Chairman. Rangle refused to take a recorded vote and "passed" the Huges amendment on just a sham voice vote. You can find the actual video proceeding from CSPAN on youtube where the "Neahs" outnumber the Yeahs but he gaveled and passed it anyway.

Why this provision was not stripped off in the Senate version I am not sure. The is one mystery that has always alluded me.

Ultimately when the bill got to Reagans desk the NRA supposedly urged him to pass it with the poison pill anyway, believing that provision would be stripped out in court later. (which obviously never happened). As to exactly what the NRA lobbied or didn't lobby Reagan to do I can't say.

I will say I am pretty sure the NRA certainly didn't come up with the idea of adding the Hughes Amendment to FOPA but conversely also didn't appear willing to throw the whole FOPA bill away because of Hughes Amendment either. Hence why many folks believe that the NRA sold out machinegun owners because they believe the NRA could have opposed the whole bill and it would have never been signed into law and then theoretically congress come back later and try and pass a clean bill. The NRA has also never done anything to help get it repealed in the courts either.












which is why i feel the way i do about the NRA.
I'm very thankful they block bad legislation when they can, but they are very passive about overturning bad legislation.
even though overturning the hughes amendment at this point would really hurt the investments of the NFA crowd
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:59:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/12/2013 8:07:44 PM EST by GunnyG]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By teeli:




http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af277/Tommyintx/forum%20shit/1238470842138_zpsa72f61fc.jpg

which is why i feel the way i do about the NRA.
I'm very thankful they block bad legislation when they can, but they are very passive about overturning bad legislation.
even though overturning the hughes amendment at this point would really hurt the investments of the NFA crowd
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By teeli:
Originally Posted By jbntex:
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
So I read a long article in the NYT (please, don't start - it is after all good to know the enemy's party line) tonight about the power of the NRA and it says that WLP was responsible for the MG ban in 1986 - that he used it as a concession/compromise to get the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

Anybody know anything about the history of this lobbying side of the FOPA and the MG ban?


Not exactly the case.

The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act had a bunch of good things in it. Allowed mail order ammo, did away with the ammo sales record keeping requirement, addressed ATF abuses of FFL holders, protected you form prosecution while traveling through non-gun-friendly cites/states. Some of these provisioned have ended up as a net benefit....like mail order ammo sales....others not so much like the traveling protection clause. (god help you if you are found with an AR traveling though NYC)

The democrats in power at the time decided the best way to sink the FOPA bill was to add a poison pill amendment which was authored by William Hughes (D-NJ) and which banned the sale of post May 86 machineguns to civilians. This was brought to a voice vote in the middle of the night by the infamous "Tax Cheat" Charlie Rangle Dem from -NY presiding as Chairman. Rangle refused to take a recorded vote and "passed" the Huges amendment on just a sham voice vote. You can find the actual video proceeding from CSPAN on youtube where the "Neahs" outnumber the Yeahs but he gaveled and passed it anyway.

Why this provision was not stripped off in the Senate version I am not sure. The is one mystery that has always alluded me.

Ultimately when the bill got to Reagans desk the NRA supposedly urged him to pass it with the poison pill anyway, believing that provision would be stripped out in court later. (which obviously never happened). As to exactly what the NRA lobbied or didn't lobby Reagan to do I can't say.

I will say I am pretty sure the NRA certainly didn't come up with the idea of adding the Hughes Amendment to FOPA but conversely also didn't appear willing to throw the whole FOPA bill away because of Hughes Amendment either. Hence why many folks believe that the NRA sold out machinegun owners because they believe the NRA could have opposed the whole bill and it would have never been signed into law and then theoretically congress come back later and try and pass a clean bill. The NRA has also never done anything to help get it repealed in the courts either.










http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af277/Tommyintx/forum%20shit/1238470842138_zpsa72f61fc.jpg

which is why i feel the way i do about the NRA.
I'm very thankful they block bad legislation when they can, but they are very passive about overturning bad legislation.
even though overturning the hughes amendment at this point would really hurt the investments of the NFA crowd

Larry Pratt and his GOA have been around since 1975. When and where did he/they try to get this amendment stricken?
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 11:01:35 PM EST
How do you guys feel about repeal of the Hughes amendment?
I told my wife tonight I'd sacrifice my MG "investment" if I could suddenly go out and buy a bunch of new colts on the cheap
Will it ever happen?
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 11:06:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
How do you guys feel about repeal of the Hughes amendment?
I told my wife tonight I'd sacrifice my MG "investment" if I could suddenly go out and buy a bunch of new colts on the cheap
Will it ever happen?
View Quote


not in our lifetime, unless the current administration literally fell, violently, and the people saw to it the
"nickle and diming" of the second amendment didn't happen again.

what's there is it. so invest accordingly, so your children can enjoy.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 11:08:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GunnyG:
Larry Pratt and his GOA have been around since 1975. When and where did he/they try to get this amendment stricken?
View Quote


They haven't, i don't think.
If they thought they could pull it off, they could.
But you know, they're the extremist right-wingers of the pro-2a crowd.
The NRA is left wing compared to them
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 5:06:20 AM EST
I knew Hughes, helped in in the 70s before he drank the Koolaid... he was pro gun then... it was a sad time in the 80s... I told them to shove in in 80 or 81.... they were jumping on the Teddy- Kerry-Clinton train then...
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 5:31:13 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
How do you guys feel about repeal of the Hughes amendment?
I told my wife tonight I'd sacrifice my MG "investment" if I could suddenly go out and buy a bunch of new colts on the cheap
Will it ever happen?
View Quote


Nope, it's here to stay.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:10:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 6:16:29 AM EST by cyborg543]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By teeli:


They haven't, i don't think.
If they thought they could pull it off, they could.
But you know, they're the extremist right-wingers of the pro-2a crowd.
The NRA is left wing compared to them
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By teeli:
Originally Posted By GunnyG:
Larry Pratt and his GOA have been around since 1975. When and where did he/they try to get this amendment stricken?


They haven't, i don't think.
If they thought they could pull it off, they could.
But you know, they're the extremist right-wingers of the pro-2a crowd.
The NRA is left wing compared to them



seriously, what good is the GOA to anyone?

suppose I form my own gun owners group, "The Cyborg Gun Owners Association"

I'll spend my days taking your money, talking big, and having no political influence

AKA the GOA game plan


basically, the NRA has two useful functions:

1. They are famous, so "average people" join up. The average joe schmoe hears about the NRA in the papers all the time, so he joins up when the liberals start banning magazines and so forth. By having everyone join just one organization, you concentrate the money and power into one organization instead of spreading it out into 100 small groups. That concentration of force is essential.

2. The only actual job that any politician has is to get re-elected. The NRA has a fine track record of targeting politicians in shaky elections and wiping them out. So almost all of the politicians fear having the NRA on their ass. None of them wants to get cut out of the pack and wiped out.


Those two things above are why the liberal scumbags of this country complain bitterly about the NRA. They don't want millions of average guys joining a gun organization and they don't want the average guy's money being used to fuck up their re-elections and trash their gun laws.


What does Larry Pratt and the GOA amount to? A giant fart sound of faux-tough talk that nobody ever hears or cares about. Tough talk from a micro-organization is a waste of time, it influences nothing and changes nothing.




Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:32:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 9:45:01 AM EST by cyborg543]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By teeli:
Larry Pratt has bigger balls than Wayne LaPierre, I wish he was the head of the NRA.
Won't go any further because this site is super-pro NRA and i don't want to get raped for marching out of step.

You're looking for the wrong thing. research the hughes amendment and you'll get alot more information then just reading about FOPA.
View Quote



The only reason that NRA bashers get bashed themselves is because the NRA bashing on this site is usually completely absurd.


basically the threads amount to a bunch of elite commando type pinheads passing weird little slogans back and forth to sort of show how hardcore and uber-elite they are

One guy wrote that the NRA was "elderly pony tail wearing California gun hobbyists." I actually read that right here on arfcom.


I've seen plenty of guys who said the NRA backed the Brady bill.

Fighting the Brady Bill added 1 million new members to the NRA, they fucked up the liberals so bad over it that Clinton gave them credit for destroying his liberal congress.


You almost never see any kind of anti-NRA discussion that makes any real sense or has any facts in it.

Take this thread for example - just one guy posted up a partial explanation of the mechanics of how the Hughes amendment passed.

Asking about the NRA's role in the formation of the law is a fair question, but simply saying "the NRA threw MGs under the bus" is just a waste of time, it's nonsense.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:40:37 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By secondofangle:
How do you guys feel about repeal of the Hughes amendment?
I told my wife tonight I'd sacrifice my MG "investment" if I could suddenly go out and buy a bunch of new colts on the cheap
Will it ever happen?
View Quote

I can't get SBR, SBS or MG in this state, so it is an academic discussion for now, but what I'd want (an authentic WWII BAR & TSMG) wouldn't be any cheaper if the market dropped on new manufacture MGs.

Just because it wouldn't benefit me, doesn't mean I wouldn't be all for a repeal.

To blame the NRA, or anyone else other than Sen. Charlie Rangle , Hughes himself, and the 124 senators who did vote for it, is unfair. Hughes notwithstanding, FOPA really was broader and quite a substantial improvement over what we had going on in '85.

The amendment came in out of left field, in the last 240 seconds of debate (as close to being literally "last minute" as you can get).
124 (D) senators thought it would kill the bill that we wanted.




Top Top