Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/13/2006 7:58:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 8:00:25 PM EDT by motown_steve]
Yes, they are all attrocities and violations of the Second Amendment. OK that said...of the three major national gun control laws, which one was the worst?

- 1934 National Firearms Act

- 1968 Gun Control Act

- Machine Gun Ban ammendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act

My vote if for the 1968 Gun Control Act. It paved the way for the 1986 Machine Gun ban and is the reason of the 1989 Import Ban.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:00:41 PM EDT
All three are equally vulgar transgressions of the sacred right to bear arms that was bestowed upon us by the Founders.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:04:15 PM EDT
all bad but 68 had the most widespread effect , changed the landscape of firearms ownership
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:05:14 PM EDT
i voted the 86 ban, not even being able to buy new full autos even if you have a license is retarded and have collapsible stocks like the on benelli m4 and mag extensions.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:06:08 PM EDT
Didn't the 89 import ban effectively outlaw more weapons than any other law?

It still pisses me off that GB could do that shit with a simple executive order...

You don't even need to pass a law to rape the constitution....
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:06:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:
All three are equally vulgar transgressions of the sacred right to bear arms that was bestowed upon us by the Founders.



Yes, that is true...but which one represents the greatest infringment on the second amendment? The 1934 GCA didn't really ban any guns, it made them more difficult to acquire. The 1968 GCA not only makes it more difficult for people to acquire guns (banning mail order and interstate sales), it also forbids certain classes of citizens from owning guns and completely bans some firearms.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:08:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By the_great_snag:
Didn't the 89 import ban effectively outlaw more weapons than any other law?

It still pisses me off that GB could do that shit with a simple executive order...

You don't even need to pass a law to rape the constitution....



Non-sporting firearms were banned from importation by the 1968 GCA. The 1989 Bush Import Ban was simply a clarification of the 1968 GCA.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:10:19 PM EDT
To be honest with you, the 1934 NFA isn't too bad. It just says you have to pay a tax and wait a while. That I can deal with. The other two are the worst.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:10:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 8:11:55 PM EDT by LANCEMAN]
Wasn't '86 good for gunowners and FFLs for the most part, except for the full auto amendment ? Just asking for clarification, from what I understand it was a good bill otherwise.

ETA: '86 got screwed up on a questionable voice vote by the Democrat controlled congress if I understand right
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:10:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stlkid:
i voted the 86 ban, not even being able to buy new full autos even if you have a license is retarded and have collapsible stocks like the on benelli m4 and mag extensions.



the 86 was a 90% win for our side and the benelli thing was a 1989 thing
I don't remeber pre 68 but ammo was regulated and you were in danger of getting ran in for being a unlicensed dealer for private transfers prior to the 86 FOPA
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:11:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
Wasn't '86 good for gunowners and FFLs for the most part, except for the full auto amendment ? Just asking for clarification, from what I understand it was a good bill otherwise.



Yes. The 1986 bull (Firearm Owners Protection Act) did a number of good things. It allows you to buy long guns in any state (assuming the gun is legal in your home state) and made transporting guns across state lines no longer a nightmare.

That being said, it still should not have been passed with the MG Ban intact.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:11:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 8:12:32 PM EDT by www-glock19-com]

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
Wasn't '86 good for gunowners and FFLs for the most part, except for the full auto amendment ? Just asking for clarification, from what I understand it was a good bill otherwise.


yes deregulated ammo , and reigned in some out of line harassment of FFLs, also you were in danger of being a unlicensed dealer for private tranfers prior to 86
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:12:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:
All three are equally vulgar transgressions of the sacred right to bear arms that was bestowed upon us by the Founders.



That right wasn't 'bestowed' upon us by ANY man. God gave it to us, the Founding Fathers just protected it.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:12:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
Wasn't '86 good for gunowners and FFLs for the most part, except for the full auto amendment ? Just asking for clarification, from what I understand it was a good bill otherwise.



Yes, it was. People were being prosecuted and harassed for legally traveling with leagally owned firearms in some jurisdictions prior to the 1986 FOPA. It was a good law and I support it despite the MG ban that was tacked onto it. That is why I distinguished the MG ban from the rest of the law.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:13:17 PM EDT
'86 got screwed up on a questionable voice vote by the Democrat controlled congress if I understand right

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:18:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 8:19:10 PM EDT by roboman]

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
'86 got screwed up on a questionable voice vote by the Democrat controlled congress if I understand right




Right. I forget that shitbarge's name controlling the vote, but there was a voice vote that was dubious at best. Marked as passed, and the rest is history.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:23:32 PM EDT
I voted for the '68 ban. I don't like any of them, but that one set the stage for all the bullshit legislation to follow.
Top Top