Quoted: Quoted: The primary focus of the Second Amendment is the militia Arguably...and depending on one's point of view or perspective. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

By way of explanation, I was referring to what guns are the focus of 2A - namely those suited to a militia.  i.e. MG's NOT Mausers.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The primary focus of the Second Amendment is the militia Arguably...and depending on one's point of view or perspective. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By way of explanation, I was referring to what guns are the focus of 2A - namely those suited to a militia.  i.e. MG's NOT Mausers.

Oh, the other posts didn't jump out at me as much as that one.....

Sorry.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ever tried to travel across state lines with a semi auto   SBR? Did you get your Federal permission slip? FEDERAL permission slip? What WG was pointing out was that travelling with ANY firearm back then was similar to NFA travel today. In editing my post, you missed my point.

Why is it that it's always everyone else who's missing your point, bud? We get your point. In fact, in acknowledging your point (hypothetical law against free speech), all I am saying is you need to consider the situation if a bill such as you describe ISN'T signed into law?

After all, the prez can either sign your anti-free speech law or not sign it. What if he doesn't outlaw contacting and influencing politicians? What is the reality, then, if the bill is vetoed and goes away?

We still lose, and lose big. No transporting typewriters or word processors without fear of arrest. Paper, ink, pens and pencils are all strictly regulated. No one can sell a computer without fear of arrest.

Is that somehow better than if the prez signs your hypothetical bill into law? What good is a right if you cannot exercise it in the real world?

Sure, we lost new MGs in FOPA. The alternative (status quo) was worse, because the system was, at that time,  set up to severely limit and restrict one's ability to exercise our 2nd Amendment right.

So, I ask you again, would it have been better if the prez stepped away from your hypothical anti-free speech bill without signing it? Or, would it have been better in the grand scheme of things if he signed your hypothetical bill?

Quoted: So, I ask you again, would it have been better if the prez stepped away from your hypothical anti-free speech bill without signing it? Or, would it have been better in the grand scheme of things if he signed your hypothetical bill?

The point is we accept today politically expedient compromises the Founding Fathers NEVER would have stood for.

On the First and Second Amendment (what we are discussing here) , I beleive the President of the United States should NEVER EVER pizz away essential liberties. NEVER. It is his sworn duty to protect the Constitution - NOT to rationalize it away as some kind of bone to throw gunowners, as if he is some kind of back woods fur trader.

If EVER we would talk impeachment, GIVING AWAY COnstitutional rights, even to gain other rights, is impeachable and JUST AS BAD as those who took the rights restored by FOPA.

How can you demonize GCA 68 in taking away rights as FOPA GAVE AWAY rights?? Theya re the same thing.   Its a net zero, and FOPA clearly as evil as GCA 68 as BOTH took away rights.

I understand in NOT signing FOPA we would not IMMEDIATELY gain back certain rights. But GIVING away essentail liberties to gain other liberties is a fools errand.

And BTW, your sig line is the best argument yet against FOPA. "Grandfathering" is simply trading rights for rights.

Id rather have machine guns, new ones.

I'm not here to throw piss on the shitstorm, but can someone please explain FOPA for those of us who are not old enough to remember it? What does the acronym stand for and what exactly did it do, in detail? Google search turned up all kinds of crap but nothing about this.

ETA: I know it was a machine gun ban of some kind, but don't know what else it accomplished.

So, you are saying the prez shouldn't have signed your hypothetical bill.

BTW, grandfathering had nothing to do with FOPA. We had a clean bill that an amendment was tacked on by the dems at the last minute. The amendment forbade the private purchase of any MGs that were built after 1986. No grandfathering there. If it was a true grandfather clause, then everybody who owned MGs at that point couldn't buy any more and no new purchases of existing MGs would be allowed. If it was a true grandfather clause, you or I couldn't buy someone else's, which we clearly can right now, if we had enough money.

All it did was limit the pool of available (transferrable) MGs. That's not what a grandfather clause does.

Again, nothing in FOPA should be confused with a grandfather clause.

Quoted: I'm not here to throw piss on the shitstorm, but can someone please explain FOPA for those of us who are not old enough to remember it? What does the acronym stand for and what exactly did it do, in detail? Google search turned up all kinds of crap but nothing about this.

SteyrAug had a couple of posts in this thread that summed it up nicely.

Quoted: So, you are saying the prez shouldn't have signed your hypothetical bill. .

No he should NOT sign a bill that gives away political free speech. EVER, Under any circumstances.

To do so would be to violate his oath of office to protect the Constitutiona against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I'd be STUNNED to find out anyone would think he SHOULD sign a bill giving away political free speech. Just as I am surprised to find people supporting FOPA.

Quoted: BTW, grandfathering had nothing to do with FOPA.  If it was a true grandfather clause, then everybody who owned MGs at that point couldn't buy any more and no new purchases of existing MGs would be allowed. If it was a true grandfather clause, you or I couldn't buy someone else's, which we clearly can right now, if we had enough money. .

Technically FOPA is not grandfathering.

Practically it is.

Grandfathering is trading some rights for other rights, which is exactly what FOPA did.

Grandfathering and FOPA has the EXACT SAME net result - giving away rights for political expediency.

And in this way your sig line is the best argument against FOPA.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not here to throw piss on the shitstorm, but can someone please explain FOPA for those of us who are not old enough to remember it? What does the acronym stand for and what exactly did it do, in detail? Google search turned up all kinds of crap but nothing about this. SteyrAug had a couple of posts in this thread that summed it up nicely.

SteyrAug didn't explain in detail exactly what FOPA is. If you would be so kind as to simply tell me what the acronym stands for then I may educate myself further on this particular subject. Thank you. (Not all of us are as old as you).  

Firearm Owners Protection Act as amended in the US House of Reps April 1986

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not here to throw piss on the shitstorm, but can someone please explain FOPA for those of us who are not old enough to remember it? What does the acronym stand for and what exactly did it do, in detail? Google search turned up all kinds of crap but nothing about this. SteyrAug had a couple of posts in this thread that summed it up nicely. SteyrAug didn't explain in detail exactly what FOPA is. If you would be so kind as to simply tell me what the acronym stands for then I may educate myself further on this particular subject. Thank you. (Not all of us are as old as you).

Firearm Owner Protection Act.

Basically it was an attempt to undue much of the damage done by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

The most important provision was it protected "colelctors" from being prosecuted as "unlicensed dealers" if they made a favorable trade or their investment matured before the sale of a firearm. Say you bought a pre 68 Mauser for $350 and sold it later for $450, you could be prosecuted for dealer without a license since you made a "profit" prior to FOPA 86. Additionally there was a basic ATF gunshow sting where they would sell guns "cheap" and then undercover agents would try and buy them for more than you just paid for the gun and if you went along with it you were arrested for being an "unlicensed gun dealer."

The 1968 GCA also prohibited the importation of military firearms. This put an end to the surplus Mausers, Enfields and even US made lend lease guns that could be bought at Sears so cheaply. Modern military firearms like SKS rifles were also not "importable." For any foreign firearm to be "importable" it had to pass the "sporter clause" test of the 1968 GCA.

There was also the restrictions on ammo. Only dealers and stores could sell ammo and it couldn't be ordered direct. Gun dealers and stores had a book for tracking ammunition that was similar to that for guns. And ordering large amounts of ammunition drew the same scrutiny as ordering large quantities of firearms. You also couldn't order ammunition from Shotgun News and have it sent to your home, it had to go to a dealer.

Those are basically the ones that were nullified by the 1986 FOPA.

I gotta reverse myself -

FOPA is EXACTLY grandfathering.

What do you think the pre-86 MG's are considered now?

They are grandfathered in. Having traded away future rights to achieve that grandfathering.

And as has so wisely been said -

"Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today."

Apologies for my hasty statement before.

Quoted: I gotta reverse myself - FOPA is EXACTLY grandfathering. What do you think the pre-86 MG's are considered now? They are grandfathered in. Having traded away future rights to achieve that grandfathering. And as has so wisely been said - "Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today." Apologies for my hasty statement before.

Correct on that one. That way they avoid that direct violation of the Constitution mess that an outright ban would cause. They know NFA firearms have a finite life.

From your poll options

No. I wasn't worth it.

looks to be 54 of you right now admitted that you wern't worth it'

might as well just give up and kill yourselves now

Quoted: Quoted: I gotta reverse myself - FOPA is EXACTLY grandfathering. What do you think the pre-86 MG's are considered now? They are grandfathered in. Having traded away future rights to achieve that grandfathering. And as has so wisely been said - "Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today." Apologies for my hasty statement before. Correct on that one. That way they avoid that direct violation of the Constitution mess that an outright ban would cause. They know NFA firearms have a finite life.

Well, I was bound to get one right sooner or later.  

Quoted: No he should NOT sign a bill that gives away political free speech. EVER, Under any circumstances. To do so would be to violate his oath of office to protect the Constitutiona against all enemies foreign and domestic. I'd be STUNNED to find out anyone would think he SHOULD sign a bill giving away political free speech.

You mean like GWB did with "Campaign Finance Reform?"

Quoted: Quoted: I'd view life without FOPA as some inconveneinces, and just a different set of bogus rules. But we wouldn't have as much precedent of the precise arms intended to be protected by 2A being Federally regulated being "check with me" guns. Either way would suck. But we would still have the main intent of 2A more in tact than it is now. Machine guns ceased to be viable "militia" weapons in 1934. At the time, a car cost $600 or so. The $200 NFA tax was outrageous, and it was intentionally outrageous. Congress didn't have the support to ban them outright so they banned them through taxation. Even in the 1950s the $200 tax was four times the price of a transferable MP44 for example. Think of it in today's dollars...how many of the "militia" would buy a transferable M16 for $5,000? It would be the same people who have MGs now...the well-to-do. Not the average gun owner. Not to mention the whole registration requirement, paperwork to move the thing around, etc. MGs are a curiosity and a collectible, nothing more, and they have been that way for 70+ years.

Are you trying to imply that if the 86 ban was off the books M-16's would be $5000?

A damn M-16 would not cost any more than an AR-15 sans the federal tax.

Quoted: Are you trying to imply that if the 86 ban was off the books M-16's would be $5000? A damn M-16 would not cost any more than an AR-15 sans the federal tax.

The real world price would be more.

Manufactured as M16s would probably be impossible to get ahold of and most would be Title II conversions. In addition most manufacturers would place heavy restrictions on new M16 parts so that would add to the price of a Title II M16 conversion.

In the end, the finished product would probably be about twice what the original semi version cost. That is more or less how it was before the ban. And due to strict controls a "maufactured as" M16 would probably cost even more.

But you are correct, the from the factory price is nearly identical.

Quoted: Machine guns ceased to be viable "militia" weapons in 1934. At the time, a car cost $600 or so. The $200 NFA tax was outrageous, and it was intentionally outrageous. Congress didn't have the support to ban them outright so they banned them through taxation. Even in the 1950s the $200 tax was four times the price of a transferable MP44 for example. Think of it in today's dollars...how many of the "militia" would buy a transferable M16 for $5,000? It would be the same people who have MGs now...the well-to-do. Not the average gun owner. Not to mention the whole registration requirement, paperwork to move the thing around, etc. MGs are a curiosity and a collectible, nothing more, and they have been that way for 70+ years. Are you trying to imply that if the 86 ban was off the books M-16's would be $5000? A damn M-16 would not cost any more than an AR-15 sans the federal tax.

No, I'm not. The point I was trying to make is that in the early days of the NFA, the tax was so expensive that almost nobody could afford a MG. I was just trying to express it in today's dollars. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Obviously, if new manufacture M16s were available, they would cost the same as an AR does now.

One of the few saving graces of the NFA is that the tax was never indexed for inflation, so the $200 that was ridiculously expensive in 1934 is a pittance now.

i would have not signed it.  if i don't like the firearm laws in another state, i can choose not to live or travel there.  but banning MGs affects the entire country.

from an inflation calculator

What cost $200 in 1934 would cost $2854.86 in 2005.

Quoted: Quoted: No he should NOT sign a bill that gives away political free speech. EVER, Under any circumstances. To do so would be to violate his oath of office to protect the Constitutiona against all enemies foreign and domestic. I'd be STUNNED to find out anyone would think he SHOULD sign a bill giving away political free speech. You mean like GWB did with "Campaign Finance Reform?"

EXACTLY.

America is DOOMED unless we get off the bandwagons that control the political landscape.

Until Repubicans / Conservatives  can admit the WRONG acts of Republicans (like Reagans FOPA and Bush's CFR both violations of their oath of office) , we're in SERIOUS trouble

Quoted: from an inflation calculator What cost $200 in 1934 would cost $2854.86 in 2005.

Thank you. My point exactly.

Quoted: Quoted: You mean like GWB did with "Campaign Finance Reform?" EXACTLY. America is DOOMED unless we get off the bandwagons that control the political landscape. Until Repubicans / Conservatives  can admit the WRONG acts of Republicans (like Reagans FOPA and Bush's CFR both violations of their oath of office) , we're in SERIOUS trouble

Ahem. Atleast we actually got alot in return for FOPA.

Bush royally f*cked all Americans with CFR...and there was no upside to the legislation.

Unless you consider making it harder to unseat incumbents an "upside."

Quoted: Ahem. Atleast we actually got alot in return for FOPA. Bush royally f*cked all Americans with CFR...and there was no upside to the legislation. Unless you consider making it harder to unseat incumbents a positive.

The fact that we got something (IMO FAR less than what we gave away) with FOPA does NOT change the fact that allowing the MG ban to stand was a violation of Reagans oath of office.

By allowing it, Reagan was saying "shall not be infringed" really doesn't mean anything, and is not a COnstitutional protection afforded the citizens. Yes, that was already the reality, and Reagan said it shall continue to be reality. Reagan validated gov't being the arbiter of who will be armed with 2A firearms

There is just no away around that fact, and no rationalization by FOPA apologists can change it.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, bud. I once held your opinion, but changed my mind when I researched the matter. I don't think I will ever change my mind again and think FOPA was a raw deal for the RKBA.

Quoted: You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, bud. I once held your opinion, but changed my mind when I researched the matter. I don't think I will ever change my mind again and think FOPA was a raw deal for the RKBA.

That's fine.


I hear you and Steyr Aug and ETH saying "I researched it, I'm smart" (implying I haven't, and am not smart)  but I don't see you disproving my assertions re: the interrelation of the MG ban and the Second Amendment.

So you are 100% correct - we agree to disagree. Which is fine. I know on the larger issues, we agree 100%.

Quoted: Quoted: You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, bud. I once held your opinion, but changed my mind when I researched the matter. I don't think I will ever change my mind again and think FOPA was a raw deal for the RKBA. I hear you and Steyr Aug and ETH saying "I researched it, I'm smart" (implying I haven't, and am not smart)...

No, I said precisely what I meant to say. At one time I had the opinion that FOPA sucked, now I don't, and getting more information on the matter is what helped change my mind.

...but I don't see you disproving my assertions re: the interrelation of the MG ban and the Second Amendment.

And I don't see you disproving my assertions that if FOPA never got signed into law, we'd be worse off, RKBA wise.

I'll close with this....

Clinton gave away a few cosmetic features on a few firearms for ten years, and he is Satan.

Reagan gave away an entire class of firearms, the VERY firearms most protected by 2A, which arguably may NEVER be regained, and FOPA apologists sing his praises as Ronaldus Maximus.

THere is NO WAY that is logically consistent.

G'day.

Quoted: I'll close with this.... Clinton gave away a few cosmetic features on a few firearms for ten years, and he is Satan. Reagan gave away an entire class of firearms, the VERY firearms most protected by 2A, which arguably may NEVER be regained, and FOPA apologists sing his praises as Ronaldus Maximus. THere is NO WAY that is logically consistent. G'day.

No shit. The kool-aid drinkers here won't admit that the past two republican administrations (Reagan and Bush 41) have passed more legeislation against the RKBA then any democrat that really affects us. Those two major bans alone have done more to insure that common people cannot afford modern firearms than any other in history yet the afrcom sheeple don't see it that way.

Quoted: Quoted: I'll close with this.... Clinton gave away a few cosmetic features on a few firearms for ten years, and he is Satan. Reagan gave away an entire class of firearms, the VERY firearms most protected by 2A, which arguably may NEVER be regained, and FOPA apologists sing his praises as Ronaldus Maximus. THere is NO WAY that is logically consistent. G'day. No shit. The kool-aid drinkers here won't admit that the past two republican administrations (Reagan and Bush 41) have passed more legeislation against the RKBA then any democrat that really affects us. Those two major bans alone have done more to insure that common people cannot afford modern firearms than any other in history yet the afrcom sheeple don't see it that way.

Give away machine guns, and get Mausers and mail order ammo.

All hail, Ronaldus!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll close with this.... Clinton gave away a few cosmetic features on a few firearms for ten years, and he is Satan. Reagan gave away an entire class of firearms, the VERY firearms most protected by 2A, which arguably may NEVER be regained, and FOPA apologists sing his praises as Ronaldus Maximus. THere is NO WAY that is logically consistent. G'day. No shit. The kool-aid drinkers here won't admit that the past two republican administrations (Reagan and Bush 41) have passed more legeislation against the RKBA then any democrat that really affects us. Those two major bans alone have done more to insure that common people cannot afford modern firearms than any other in history yet the afrcom sheeple don't see it that way. Give away machine guns, and get Mausers and mail order ammo. All hail, Ronaldus!

I wonder though, would they vote for a democrat that is pro-abortion, pro-enviroment and wanted to do away with the '86 and '89 bans or would they stick to the right wing mantra and screw over a constitutional right for their party and own agenda?

Quoted: I wonder though, would they vote for a democrat that is pro-abortion, pro-enviroment and wanted to do away with the '86 and '89 bans or would they stick to the right wing mantra and screw over a constitutional right for their party and own agenda?

I'd try not to  characterize anyone on this board that way, especially not one of them who is a VERY good friend of mine. I don't beleive he'd do any thing of this sort.

But it highlights a problem with politics in general - its all about COMPROMISE.

And the fact is the Republicans HAVE compromised / given away more of our gun rights than Democrats have been able to take by force.

And until we all understand the truth of that, we will CONTINUE to lose gun rights, trading away essentials for trivialities.   And I'll give DUbya credit - at least he hasn't given away any of our gun rights (to my knowledge) He just gave away First Amendment rights.

Quoted: And the fact is the Republicans HAVE compromised / given away more of our gun rights than Democrats have been able to take by force.

There are four major things GWB has done that I agree with and wholeheartedly support him on:

1. First and foremost, the AWB went away on his watch. Regardless of what he said about the AWB, the fact of the matter is it went away when it didn't have to.

2. Secondly, he helped push for, and then signed into law junk lawsuit immunity for firearms manufacturers. This could actually be more important than #1 in the long run.

3. Tax cuts. Pretty good news for the average taxpayer, it's music to the ears of businessmen, and I am a businessman.

4. He pisses off Democrats and liberals more than any other president since I've been paying attention. Alot of this has to do with his push for war in Iraq, however, which I've never really been "cool" with (I've more or less tolerated the decision to invade). The bigger picture is he apparently is keeping alot of pressure on terrorists worldwide, so I will give him a pass on this. For now.

There, if it weren't for those four items, I'd have to rate his presidency thus far "a disappointment" at best, a qualified failure at worst. His quasi-socialistic policies on spending rival or surpass anything a liberal Democrat would peddle and Campaign Finance Reform is nothing short of treasonous (plenty of blame to go around on that one, however). To this day, he thinks securing our borders is somehow racist and won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole. Throw in for good measure his second nomination for the supreme court (what...the...FOCK...was he thinking???) and we're bordering on the "bizarre." Thank God he backed off and then nominated Alito...I think. In the end, GWB has been better for gun-owners than Ronald Reagan. Think about that. I wouldn't trade TWO GWBs for Ronald Reagan, but there it is: under Reagan we did lose a chunk of our 2nd Amendment rights (we gained alot, too), but GWB is the first president since Jimmah Cahtah where the RKBA didn't take a hit. Add in the two major victories (#s 1 and 2) and shit, we should be crowning the guy king right now.

Unfortunately, it's almost everything else that GWB has faltered on. Too bad. He had the opportunity to cement himself as one of the all-time greats, and I really mean that. As it is, I rate his presidency a "B-."

And until we all understand the truth of that, we will CONTINUE to lose gun rights, trading away essentials for trivialities.   And I'll give DUbya credit - at least he hasn't given away any of our gun rights (to my knowledge) He just gave away First Amendment rights.

Reagan did NOT trade away "trivialities," bud.

Quoted: Reagan did NOT trade away "trivialities," bud.

I think you meant "Regan did not GAIN trivialities."

I think we all agree he didn't trade away trivialities.

I fully agree what FOPA gained us was very important. I disagree that it was a worthwhile trade, but that is a judgment call which good people can disagree on.

But there is something no Constitutionalist can disagree on -

1. Reagan violated his oath of office to defend the COnstitution as he signed a law that is CLEARLY unConstitutional on its face.

2. To hold that CLinton is Satan for temporarily trading away some cosmetic features and hold Reagan as good for permanently giving away machine guns is illogical in the extreme.

YOu might also note - SteryAug agrees with my assessment that FOPA IS in fact grandfathering, while he agrees with you FOPA was a good thing.

Quoted: I think you meant "Regan did not GAIN trivialities."

But there is something no Constitutionalist can disagree on - 1. Reagan violated his oath of office to defend the COnstitution as he signed a law that is CLEARLY unConstitutional on its face. 2. To hold that CLinton is Satan for temporarily trading away some cosmetic features and hold Reagan as good for permanently giving away machine guns is illogical in the extreme.

The difference is Clinton wanted MORE gun control...while Reagan wanted LESS. Each was forced to deal with the reality at the time: Reagan and FOPA with a tacked-on MG ban amendment, Clinton and an AWB with a tacked-on sunset clause. Both were upset with the inclusions. That tells you something.

YOu might also note - SteryAug agrees with my assessment that FOPA IS in fact grandfathering, while he agrees with you FOPA was a good thing.

I know. While it might seem like the MG ban included a grandfather clause, a true GF clause only allows whoever owns a firearm to keep that firearm. You cannot sell it or trade it. Pre-'86 machine guns are still 100% legal to own, use, and sell to anyone who qualifies. That, my friend, is a simple limitation (cap) on the pool of machine guns, not a true grandfathering.

Quoted: The difference is Clinton wanted MORE gun control...while Reagan wanted LESS. Each was forced to deal with the reality at the time: Reagan and FOPA with a tacked-on MG ban amendment, Clinton and an AWB with a tacked-on sunset clause. Both were upset with the inclusions. That tells you something. .

So Reagan WANTED less gun control, and actually SIGNED INTO LAW more than Clinton did.

Forgive me if I don't applaud the man for that.

I measure a politician on WHAT HE DOES, not what he wants.

Ok We lost domestic machine guns in '86.  Noted.  How do we get them back.  Garandman, have you written you Reps and Senators about introducing legislation to allow them again?  If so what did they say to that?  Does anyone think that this measure would pass in Congress?

Here is what I would like to see in this Country in order of achievability (not necessarily importance)...

1- Nationwide CCW

2- Allow Importation of Assault Weapons

3- Allow New Domestic MGs

4- Allow Importation of MGs (Heck, I would be satisfied if they would just allow C&R weapons, 50 years or older , but would rather have the whole enchilada)

What do any of you think the chances in percetage points are of getting each of these?

I have a question for some of the old timers...
Was there ever a ban on importation of military ammo?

Quoted: Quoted: MGs = mountain out of a molehill. That's just wrong on so many levels. So the ability of the Fed gov't to make certain guns "check with me" access controlled by the Fed gov't is a "molehill?" Then so was the 94 import ban be, and the AWB. And NFA 34 and GCA 68. All "molehills."   Don't you get it? Is it not obvious to you? ANY law that makes gun a priviledge is  a BAD law. And the simple fact remains - IF FOPA was passed by Clinton or a Democrat, you'd be agaisnt it on Constituional grounds. Your inability to criticize compromising Republicans is teh ONLY reason you can't admit the obvious. And if the EXACT same law was passed doing the EXACT same thing to the first amendment, you'd be against it (I hope - not so sure anymore)

Gun rights were not magically curtailed overnight in one fell swoop, nor will they likely be restored in such manner.  You can sit and wait patiently for the Supreme Court to hear a 2nd Amendment case and strike down the NFA, GCA, etc., but in the mean time, the only other option is legislation.

The time for "OMG NO COMPROMISE EVAR" was 1934.  Now, the cat is out of the bag and we get to deal with it.

Your black and white view of the world is cute, but woefully inadequate for any decision more complicated that deciding what to have for lunch.

Quoted: The difference is Clinton wanted MORE gun control...while Reagan wanted LESS. .

re: what politicians want.

You need to listen to more Rush Limbaugh. He explains this quite well. I'll give it my best try.

One of the problems with liberals is they demand people judge them based on "what they want."

The "want' world peace. They "want" to help the poor. They"want"  to protect the environment, etc etc. BUT THEY NEVER ACCOMPLISH THOSE OBJECTIVES. And not only do they never accomplish any good, everything they DO is to further screw up the world.

They say "But look at all we "WANT" to do....." WHO CARES WHAT THEY WANT? Look at what they DID.

I hold politicians to the standard of WHAT THEY DO. NOT what they ambiguously "want."

The Repubs "wanting" lower taxes, or privatization of SS or closed borders is MEANINGLESS until the DO something - and on THAT BASIS I will measure their success.

Similarly, I didn't care that Bush supposedly "wanted" an AWB renewal. The FACT is he had the power to make it happen AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Kudos Bush on what he DID.

The reality is what pols accomplish IS what I judge them on.

Their rhetoric and what they say they "want" is comparatively unimportant.

Fact is, Reagan violated his oath of office, and what he DID had real consequences in law for real people in America.

Quoted: Ok We lost domestic machine guns in '86.  Noted.  How do we get them back.  Garandman, have you written you Reps and Senators about introducing legislation to allow them again?

Curious......I don't recognize your login name on my list of Arfcommers working RIGHT NOW to reverse the sporting clause. I'm coordinating the effort.


Would you like to join us?

IM me with your contact info.

The unfortunate reality is I have to spend ALOT of time even getting people to understand their IS a problem, never mind convincing them to work to fix the problem.  Just look for my thread on teh sbject. Heck, look at this thread. To SOME people, the way to regain rights is to trade away the very core of the Second Amendment.

Quoted: Your black and white view of the world is cute, but woefully inadequate for any decision more complicated that deciding what to have for lunch.

Nice condescending attitude.

Please don't ever contact your Congressmen on gun rights. Your mean spiritedness could ONLY serve to hurt the cause, and make more it difficult  for me to accomplish anything.

Quoted: Gun rights were not magically curtailed overnight in one fell swoop, nor will they likely be restored in such manner.  You can sit and wait patiently for the Supreme Court to hear a 2nd Amendment case and strike down the NFA, GCA, etc., but in the mean time, the only other option is legislation.

Actually, manufacture of domestic MG's for citizens DID go away with the stroke of a pen. Didn't even take a whole nite.

I'm not WAITING. I'm taking the fight to the enemy.

IM me to find out how.

The time for "OMG NO COMPROMISE EVAR" was 1934.  Now, the cat is out of the bag and we get to deal with it. .

I agree.

I think if you would READ what I am saying, you'd understanding I'm saying  you do NOT compromise the CORE of the Second AMendment as Reagan did.

COmpromise other areas - NOT there.

Quoted: Are you trying to imply that if the 86 ban was off the books M-16's would be $5000? A damn M-16 would not cost any more than an AR-15 sans the federal tax.

No, he's saying that the tax on full auto weapons from the 1934 act would be about $5000.

When the NFA came out, you could buy a Thompson for $100 to $200, but the tax was $200, at least double the value of the weapon, so in today's terms, it would be like spending $1000 on a decent quality M16 and the tax would be $4000.

Quoted: Quoted: Ahem. Atleast we actually got alot in return for FOPA. Bush royally f*cked all Americans with CFR...and there was no upside to the legislation. Unless you consider making it harder to unseat incumbents a positive. The fact that we got something (IMO FAR less than what we gave away) with FOPA does NOT change the fact that allowing the MG ban to stand was a violation of Reagans oath of office. By allowing it, Reagan was saying "shall not be infringed" really doesn't mean anything, and is not a COnstitutional protection afforded the citizens. Yes, that was already the reality, and Reagan said it shall continue to be reality. Reagan validated gov't being the arbiter of who will be armed with 2A firearms There is just no away around that fact, and no rationalization by FOPA apologists can change it.

The 2A was already being infringed since at least 1934.  If Reagon didn't sign the FOPA act, MGs would have been banned anyways and we would be left with nothing.  It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  

Quoted: 1- Nationwide CCW - this might happen 2- Allow Importation of Assault Weapons - possible, but unlikely 3- Allow New Domestic MGs - it will never happen, not in a million years.  The Sheeple wouldn't allow it.  Can you imagine the newspapers, media and word on the street reaction? 4- Allow Importation of MGs (Heck, I would be satisfied if they would just allow C&R weapons, 50 years or older , but would rather have the whole enchilada) - again, will never happen

Quoted: The 2A was already being infringed since at least 1934.  If Reagon didn't sign the FOPA act, MGs would have been banned anyways and we would be left with nothing.  It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

More prescient omniscience and defeatism.

In fact, history shows you were wrong. Gun rights since 1989 have been on the increase. Even CLintons legislation was for meaningless cosmetic features.

Also, your logic doesn't track. You are simultaenously arguing FOPA was a HUGE victory for gun rights, AND the trend was against gun rights.

Further, as pointed out I beleive in this thread - the MG ban was done by voice vote which many of the witnesses said was  voted down by a majority, but the Democratic leader fraudulently gave the voice vote to MG banners.

You are just dead wrong. There was no guarantee of anything, and trends were actually towards freedom.

Worse, yours is the mentality of the defeatist.