Who could 're-structure' the ATF? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Who could 're-structure' the ATF? (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 1/5/2006 3:50:35 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
then why didn't the FFs put that in the constitution?

It was a different world then. Government does not live and die by what the FF thought was needed to run a government. They didn't conceive of NASA either. Should we just scrap THAT operation?

Please dump NASA. That bullshit should have been scrapped long ago and replaced with private initiatives to accomplish the same objectives at one quarter of the cost if it is truly in the public interest (and I do not think it really is), and their inventories and land ownings liquidated to repay the deficit. Want to watch "the game" on satellite TV? Pay for the R&D yourself! NASA is nothing but a welfare transfer payment scam allowed to live long past its demise.

Posted: 1/5/2006 3:59:04 PM EDT

[#2]

Do you complainers even pay attention. The ATF just went through an entire re-organization. They are no longer a dept. of treasury, the report to the Dept. of Justice.

When the NFA was debated, designed, amended, modified, before becoming law it was stated that the only jurisidiction that the Federal government could exert over firearms was through taxation. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment forbade them from regulating firearms direct. It was only through the taxation on firearms that they could exert any control.

They could not "license" or "register" people to own machineguns, but they could force them to pay a tax (tax stamp = defacto license) and file a tax return (= defacto registration).

It was all done along the lines of, "How can we twist the Constitution and the law to get away with this?"

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:08:34 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

so what now?

law suit?

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:09:47 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

so what now?

law suit?

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:14:09 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

so what now?

law suit?

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:18:58 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Do you complainers even pay attention. The ATF just went through an entire re-organization. They are no longer a dept. of treasury, the report to the Dept. of Justice.

When the NFA was debated, designed, amended, modified, before becoming law it was stated that the only jurisidiction that the Federal government could exert over firearms was through taxation. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment forbade them from regulating firearms direct. It was only through the taxation on firearms that they could exert any control.

They could not "license" or "register" people to own machineguns, but they could force them to pay a tax (tax stamp = defacto license) and file a tax return (= defacto registration).

It was all done along the lines of, "How can we twist the Constitution and the law to get away with this?"

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

So why can't we buy machine guns that were made after 1986?

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:36:36 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Do you complainers even pay attention. The ATF just went through an entire re-organization. They are no longer a dept. of treasury, the report to the Dept. of Justice.

When the NFA was debated, designed, amended, modified, before becoming law it was stated that the only jurisidiction that the Federal government could exert over firearms was through taxation. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment forbade them from regulating firearms direct. It was only through the taxation on firearms that they could exert any control.

They could not "license" or "register" people to own machineguns, but they could force them to pay a tax (tax stamp = defacto license) and file a tax return (= defacto registration).

It was all done along the lines of, "How can we twist the Constitution and the law to get away with this?"

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

So why can't we buy machine guns that were made after 1986?

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:37:08 PM EDT

[#8]

What's with this site tonight?

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:39:10 PM EDT

[#9]

i don't know

happened a while back

Posted: 1/5/2006 4:40:55 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
i don't know

happened a while back

No, I mean all the double replies. I hit the submit button once and see two posts. I've seen others with the same deal.

Posted: 1/5/2006 6:12:08 PM EDT

[#11]

Chuck Norris could restructure them.

Posted: 1/5/2006 6:25:29 PM EDT

[#12]

I think the better question is who can dissolve it into other agencies.

Posted: 1/5/2006 6:35:35 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
You're right Government does not live and die by what the FFs thought. They did think that the smaller the government was, and the weaker it was, the people would be better off.

All of you "the smaller the government the better" people don't seem to get that if you have aweak central government in the modern 21st century world, you are just asking for this nation to get pushed around in the modern world. We are not some 18th century agrarian nation ( whose entire population of a few million people that would fit into one of our modern cities ) that benefits from having oceans around us that take weeks to navigate. You would push us right back to the Dark Ages, right before some modern nation came in and wiped us right off the face of the globe.

Posted: 1/5/2006 6:37:17 PM EDT

[#14]

i disagree

the fed gov would still be there for military and some financial matters

the "control" of firearms would reside with the states aka 10th am

Posted: 1/5/2006 6:52:35 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You're right Government does not live and die by what the FFs thought. They did think that the smaller the government was, and the weaker it was, the people would be better off.

All of you "the smaller the government the better" people don't seem to get that if you have aweak central government in the modern 21st century world, you are just asking for this nation to get pushed around in the modern world. We are not some 18th century agrarian nation ( whose entire population of a few million people that would fit into one of our modern cities ) that benefits from having oceans around us that take weeks to navigate. You would push us right back to the Dark Ages, right before some modern nation came in and wiped us right off the face of the globe.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:01:09 PM EDT

[#16]

i'll do it.

alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives should be a store (and BIG, like wally world!) and a support group, not a regulatory agency.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:05:53 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
i disagree

the fed gov would still be there for military and some financial matters

the "control" of firearms would reside with the states aka 10th am

I think the idea would be that the Fed recognizes our right to own 2 amendment, and the state realizes it isn't their place to dictate what it is we can own, or how many bullets a magazine can hold.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:18:33 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
i disagree

the fed gov would still be there for military and some financial matters

the "control" of firearms would reside with the states aka 10th am

I think the idea would be that the Fed recognizes our right to own 2 amendment, and the state realizes it isn't their place to dictate what it is we can own, or how many bullets a magazine can hold.

Soooo..if the Feds don't regulate it, and the states don't regulate it, who does, in your world?

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:21:46 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i disagree

the fed gov would still be there for military and some financial matters

the "control" of firearms would reside with the states aka 10th am

I think the idea would be that the Fed recognizes our right to own 2 amendment, and the state realizes it isn't their place to dictate what it is we can own, or how many bullets a magazine can hold.

Soooo..if the Feds don't regulate it, and the states don't regulate it, who does, in your world?

Market prices.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:26:02 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
[Market prices.

Thats not regulation.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:28:05 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Market prices.

Thats not regulation.

That's the idea.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:31:42 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you complainers even pay attention. The ATF just went through an entire re-organization. They are no longer a dept. of treasury, the report to the Dept. of Justice.

When the NFA was debated, designed, amended, modified, before becoming law it was stated that the only jurisidiction that the Federal government could exert over firearms was through taxation. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment forbade them from regulating firearms direct. It was only through the taxation on firearms that they could exert any control.

They could not "license" or "register" people to own machineguns, but they could force them to pay a tax (tax stamp = defacto license) and file a tax return (= defacto registration).

It was all done along the lines of, "How can we twist the Constitution and the law to get away with this?"

Now that the ATF is no longer a tax collection agency, their Constitutional authority over firearms is in question.

So why can't we buy machine guns that were made after 1986?

MG Ban works through the interstate Commerce Clause not a "vice tax"

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:32:31 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Market prices.

Thats not regulation.

That's the idea.

That is an unrealistic expectation.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:33:21 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i disagree

the fed gov would still be there for military and some financial matters

the "control" of firearms would reside with the states aka 10th am

I think the idea would be that the Fed recognizes our right to own 2 amendment, and the state realizes it isn't their place to dictate what it is we can own, or how many bullets a magazine can hold.

Soooo..if the Feds don't regulate it, and the states don't regulate it, who does, in your world?

That is the point, why should they be allowed to dictate to you what you can and can't have in your collection, under the assumption that you are an upstanding member of society, (not a career criminal or nutjob). So it is okay to own a hunk of metal turned into a firearm or magazine before a certain date but not after, or you barrel can be short on this side of a state line but illegal on the other side?

It is all arbitrary anyway, and yes they are infringing no matter how you look at it. It would be a hell of away to generate revenue to support other legitimate gvt activities if they allowed ownership, (oh wait they already do it is called the second amendment to the constitution).

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:35:28 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Market prices.

Thats not regulation.

That's the idea.

That is an unrealistic expectation.

I'm not expecting no regulation, but I'm sure as hell hoping for it.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:36:35 PM EDT

[#26]

Restructure? Why.

Get rid of it.

CAll it cop bashing all you want. Wahhh

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:37:20 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I'm not expecting no regulation, but I'm sure as hell hoping for it.

You will never see guns unregulated. Nor should they be totally unregulated.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:41:35 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
You will never see guns unregulated.

I will if I look hard enough. Maybe not in the US, but I don't expect them to be unregulated in the US.

Nor should they be totally unregulated.

Prove it.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:41:53 PM EDT

[#29]

A lot of anti-ATF people have these feelings the ATF is enforcing their own machine gun rules for their own pleasure. Before 1932, people could freely purchase and own machine guns. Italian mobsters used machine guns for criminal purposes. As a result, the Uniform Machine Gun Act was passed. You can all complain to the mafia for "spoiling" it for you.

So even if the President, Congress or whoever else restructures the ATF, there is still going to be a federal agency that will enforce firearm laws, investigate illegal firearms trafficking, process forms, etc.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:46:25 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
I will if I look hard enough. Maybe not in the US, but I don't expect them to be unregulated in the US.

Planning on going to Somloia or some third world unregulated country? Anywhere else, you'll have more regulations to deal with than here.

Prove it.

Are you forgetting WHY the current regulations came into effect? Its because of criminal activity and the attempts to deal with that activity. Criminals haven't stopped doing what they do, therefore you'll never see the Amewrican people approve of deregulating firearms. You'll always have the extremes, those people who totally ban every gun and those like yourself who want no regulations, but there will always be a middle ground somewhere.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:50:28 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Planning on going to Somloia or some third world unregulated country? Anywhere else, you'll have more regulations to deal with than here.

When did I ever say I intended to see guns deregulated?

Prove it.

Are you forgetting WHY the current regulations came into effect? Its because of criminal activity and the attempts to deal with that activity. Criminals haven't stopped doing what they do, therefore you'll never see the Amewrican people approve of deregulating firearms. You'll always have the extremes, those people who totally ban every gun and those like yourself who want no regulations, but there will always be a middle ground somewhere.

That's not what I said. I said prove it. So prove it.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:52:38 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
[When did I ever say I intended to see guns deregulated?

You said somewhere, but not in the US. So where?

That's not what I said. I said prove it. So prove it.

Prove what, exactly.Why they should be unregulated? You cannot have total non-regulation of firearms in the country due to criminal behavior.

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:58:18 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
[When did I ever say I intended to see guns deregulated?

You said somewhere, but not in the US. So where?

That's not what I said. I said prove it. So prove it.

Prove what, exactly.Why they should be unregulated? You cannot have total non-regulation of firearms in the country due to criminal behavior.

why not "regulate" the criminals into prison
instead of "regulating" the constitutionally protected tools of law abiding Americans?

Posted: 1/5/2006 7:59:44 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
You said somewhere, but not in the US. So where?

Reread my posts. I never said that I intended to see guns deregulated. I did say that I was hoping for it, but not that I would go to any lengths to see it. That said, I did not rule out the possibility that I might intend to see guns unregulated either.

You'll notice I phrase things carefully.

Prove what, exactly.Why they should be unregulated? You cannot have total non-regulation of firearms in the country due to criminal behavior.

Not why they should be regulated, prove THAT they should be regulated. There's a difference.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:01:49 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
[Not why they should be regulated, prove THAT they should be regulated. There's a difference.

They SHOULD be regulated because of the criminal activity that I mentioned. You apparently think that anyone regardless of their criminal background, mental stability, age or what have you should be able to walk into any gun store and buy anything they please.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:01:57 PM EDT

[#36]

Pink slips all around!!!!

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:02:48 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There must be a federal organization enforcing laws pertaining to the sale/trafficking of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. If it's not the BATFE, then it would just be another agency.

Why?

Because those are things that is misused have an extremely detrimental effect on societal order.

that would make one a criminal who does not obey laws anyway

why not arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate/execute the CRIMINALS who misuse firearms instead of violating ALL Americans 2nd am rights?

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:05:52 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
that would make one a criminal who does not obey laws anyway

why not arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate/execute the CRIMINALS who misuse firearms instead of violating ALL Americans 2nd am rights?

You don't do away with laws just because the criminal element doesn't follow them. You have to minimize their ability to easily obtain firearms through normal commercial channels in the first place without unreasonably impeding the law abiding citizens ability to do so. If they resort to criminal means to get them, then you address that problem through laws and prosecution.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:07:06 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
They SHOULD be regulated because of the criminal activity that I mentioned. You apparently think that anyone regardless of their criminal background, mental stability, age or what have you should be able to walk into any gun store and buy anything they please.

There you go assuming. You just can't go around assuming when I ask for proof.

Verb-fu is fun.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:07:59 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
There you go assuming. You just can't go around assuming when I ask for proof.

Verb-fu is fun.

What sort of proof are you looking for?

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:08:30 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
that would make one a criminal who does not obey laws anyway

why not arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate/execute the CRIMINALS who misuse firearms instead of violating ALL Americans 2nd am rights?

You don't do away with laws just because the criminal element doesn't follow them. You have to minimize their ability to easily obtain firearms through normal commercial channels in the first place without unreasonably impeding the law abiding citizens ability to do so. If they resort to criminal means to get them, then you address that problem through laws and prosecution.

We did it with the prohibition of alcohol.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:08:52 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
that would make one a criminal who does not obey laws anyway

why not arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate/execute the CRIMINALS who misuse firearms instead of violating ALL Americans 2nd am rights?

You don't do away with laws just because the criminal element doesn't follow them. You have to minimize their ability to easily obtain firearms through normal commercial channels in the first place without unreasonably impeding the law abiding citizens ability to do so. If they resort to criminal means to get them, then you address that problem through laws and prosecution.

I wasn't aware that the majority of criminals went to gun stores or dealt with FFLs to obtain firearms, how is regulating and infringing on law abiding citizens 2nd am rights actually affecting criminals?

criminals: those who disobey laws

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:10:50 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
There you go assuming. You just can't go around assuming when I ask for proof.

Verb-fu is fun.

What sort of proof are you looking for?

Proof. Proof should prove beyond any doubt that something is true. I should be able to look at everything you say and be able to come to only one relevant conclusion that is not contradictory or inconsistent to the conclusion that you are attempting to prove.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:11:57 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
]

I wasn't aware that the majority of criminals went to gun stores or dealt with FFLs to obtain firearms, how is regulating and infringing on law abiding citizens 2nd am rights actually affecting criminals

criminals: those who disobey laws

They don't go that route because of the regulations. If you deregulated firearms sales and possession, then nothing would stop them FROM going that route. They would be able to walk into any gun store and pick up anything they wanted.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:17:00 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
]

I wasn't aware that the majority of criminals went to gun stores or dealt with FFLs to obtain firearms, how is regulating and infringing on law abiding citizens 2nd am rights actually affecting criminals

criminals: those who disobey laws

They don't go that route because of the regulations. If you deregulated firearms sales and possession, then nothing would stop them FROM going that route. They would be able to walk into any gun store and pick up anything they wanted.

if they are criminals, why are they out walking around and not in prison or 6 ft under?
why not "regulate" the criminals and not the firearms?

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:21:02 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
[if they are criminals, why are they out walking around and not in prison or 6 ft under?
why not "regulate" the criminals and not the firearms?

That question is constantly asked and answered. You cannot lock criminals up forever, and most of them spend a considerable amount of time out amongst the general population. While they are out amongst us, you have to limit their ability to do more harm.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:22:26 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
[if they are criminals, why are they out walking around and not in prison or 6 ft under?
why not "regulate" the criminals and not the firearms?

That question is constantly asked and answered. You cannot lock criminals up forever, and most of them spend a considerable amount of time out amongst the general population. While they are out amongst us, you have to limit their ability to do more harm.

Or we can limit the amount of time they spend amongst the general population. That sounds more effective.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:24:48 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Or we can limit the amount of time they spend amongst the general population. That sounds more effective.

Not without drastically increasing the lengths of sentences and minimizing parole. Then you start running into issues of what constitutes excessive punishment.Otherwise, you have to deal with the fact that they ARE amongst us.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:27:06 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
[Not why they should be regulated, prove THAT they should be regulated. There's a difference.

They SHOULD be regulated because of the criminal activity that I mentioned. You apparently think that anyone regardless of their criminal background, mental stability, age or what have you should be able to walk into any gun store and buy anything they please.

You are insufferable.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:27:58 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[Not why they should be regulated, prove THAT they should be regulated. There's a difference.

They SHOULD be regulated because of the criminal activity that I mentioned. You apparently think that anyone regardless of their criminal background, mental stability, age or what have you should be able to walk into any gun store and buy anything they please.

You are insufferable.

Do YOU have a better suggestion?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Who could 're-structure' the ATF? (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us