Using Anti's tricks against them


PDA






.45Ruger
July 6, 2004, 11:46 PM
I think we all remember when the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was kiled in the Senate when Swinetien, Chuckie Scummer and their likes filled the bill with unacceptable amendments. Why nor attach some great riders to Di Fi's AWB bill. I am thinking repeal the 86 ban on new machine guns, maybe national CCW under the Full Faith and credit clause. The bill could be make so Pro-gun as to make keeping the AWB completly impossible instead of just highly unlikely.

If you enjoyed reading about "Using Anti's tricks against them" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
G1FAL
July 6, 2004, 11:58 PM
I've thought the same thing before. Even considered how to try and put things like repeal of the ban on new MG construction attached to something like, oh, I dont know, Hillary's 'great' healthcare reform crap. You run into a few problems, though. Well, maybe just one, but its a REALLY big one.

In order to do this sort of thing, you first need a CONgresscritter who's not only pro-gun, but also has the backbone to try something like this. Good luck finding one of those. Then, you need a bunch of others to get on board, so that the amendment, rider, whatever, is approved and attached to the bill in question.

Sorry but I dont think that you'll be seeing anything like this happen any time soon. Maybe not even within the lifetimes of any of the members here.

R.H. Lee
July 7, 2004, 12:00 AM
The country club checked pants RINO's lack too many body parts to do that.
They're missing spines and testicles.

Dbl0Kevin
July 7, 2004, 12:20 AM
Do you really think if we had a Senate that could pass an amendment to repeal the machine gun ban of 86 that they'd actually pass the new AWB in the first place!?!?

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 12:21 AM
Why would the Republicans want to repeal the '86 ban on new machine guns? It was a Republican president that signed it into law, after all.

VaniB.
July 7, 2004, 12:28 AM
it takes forever just to get them to agree to tax me less and let me keep some more of my hard earned money...... and you want them to agree on letting me have machine guns now?

Bartholomew Roberts
July 7, 2004, 11:58 AM
Why would the Republicans want to repeal the '86 ban on new machine guns? It was a Republican president that signed it into law, after all.

Actually, the machinegun ban was a poison pill amendment meant to kill off the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (which had been successfully killed every year for 7 years previous) that was added at the last minute by the Democrats. Instead we swallowed the pill and got both the protections and the MG ban.

Good history on it here:
http://www.hardylaw.net/FOPA.html

sch40
July 7, 2004, 01:07 PM
Thanks for the info, BR.

Welcome to The High Road, FeebMaster! :D

halvey
July 7, 2004, 01:26 PM
The country club checked pants RINO's lack too many body parts to do that. They're missing spines and testicles. :banghead:

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 03:09 PM
Actually, the machinegun ban was a poison pill amendment meant to kill off the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (which had been successfully killed every year for 7 years previous) that was added at the last minute by the Democrats. Instead we swallowed the pill and got both the protections and the MG ban.

Poison pill or not, it was passed by Congress and signed by a Republican president. Why would the Republicans now want to repeal some gun control they so happily passed in the '80s? Have they become more pro-gun since then? I certainly haven't seen any gun control get repealed since they took control of Congress and the Presidency.


Welcome to The High Road, FeebMaster!

Thanks.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 7, 2004, 03:29 PM
Why would the Republicans now want to repeal some gun control they so happily passed in the '80s?

Read the link I provided you and it will explain that.

Have they become more pro-gun since then? I certainly haven't seen any gun control get repealed since they took control of Congress and the Presidency.

Notice how ATF forbade any import of parts that could be used to build a semi-auto under Clinton (July 2000) and under Bush allowed importation of the same parts for repair or replacement (April 2001)?

As for "taking control of Congress", the Republicans have had a ONE seat advantage in the Senate for TWO whole years of Bush's four year term. That's about the same control you get driving your car with your feet. Despite that, they did pass the Tiarht Amendment protecting gun owner privacy by making destruction of NICS records on law-abiding gun owners immediate (versus 90-180 days under Clinton) and making things a bit easier for FFLs.

Thumper
July 7, 2004, 03:33 PM
Poison pill or not, it was passed by Congress and signed by a Republican president.

Please carefully reread Bartholomew's explanation. FOPA was a good thing. It was STILL a good thing, even with the BS the Dems were able to tack on.

Ol' Ronnie did the best he could for us on that one.

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 03:43 PM
Please carefully reread Bartholomew's explanation. FOPA was a good thing. It was STILL a good thing, even with the BS the Dems were able to tack on.

Ol' Ronnie did the best he could for us on that one.

I disagree. FOPA may have done some good, but it wasn't worth the machine gun ban.

Kharn
July 7, 2004, 03:54 PM
FeebMaster:
So an out-of-control ATF, being required to sign for ammunition purchases in person (no mail-order allowed) and similiar BS is "acceptable" as long as you can get a cheap machine gun?

Where are you going to buy 5k of 9mm to shoot through your Uzi, are you willing to pay high per-box prices at your local gunstore to feed your fullauto toy?

I dont like the MG ban, but its a heck of a lot better than the BS from the GCA the FOPA eliminated. Nobody thought the MG ban would survive its first judicial review, as it was obviously unconstitutional; I believe the NRA's estimate was under 6 months until the ban was struck down.

Kharn

Frohickey
July 7, 2004, 04:07 PM
The country club checked pants RINO's lack too many body parts to do that.
They're missing spines and testicles.

Thats why we need to draft Susanna Gratia-Hupp into the HouseofRepresentatives or the Senate at the federal level.

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 04:09 PM
Kharn: So an out-of-control ATF, being required to sign for ammunition purchases in person (no mail-order allowed) and similiar BS is "acceptable" as long as you can get a cheap machine gun?

Where are you going to buy 5k of 9mm to shoot through your Uzi, are you willing to pay high per-box prices at your local gunstore to feed your fullauto toy?

I dont like the MG ban, but its a heck of a lot better than the BS from the GCA the FOPA eliminated. Nobody thought the MG ban would survive its first judicial review, as it was obviously unconstitutional; I believe the NRA's estimate was under 6 months until the ban was struck down.

If ATF's behavior after FOPA qualifies as "in-control" I think I'd prefer them out-of-control.

My opposition to FOPA has nothing to do with getting a cheap machine gun for myself. Personally, I wouldn't touch the entire NFA process if it were free. I simply don't think FOPA was worth the price. Nobody thought the machine gun ban would survive and yet it's still with us today and it will probably be with us for a good long time yet. Who would have thought the NFA would last 70 years?

Kharn
July 7, 2004, 04:29 PM
You might want to find the report from the Senate hearings on the ATF in the late 70's/early 80's before you say you'd prefer the pre-FOPA ATF. The modern-day ATF looks like choir boys in comparision.

Please read the Hardy link in Bartholomew Roberts' post near the top of this thread, its quite informative about all the changes the FOPA implemented.

Kharn

Bartholomew Roberts
July 7, 2004, 04:37 PM
I disagree. FOPA may have done some good, but it wasn't worth the machine gun ban.

Remember that just eight years later, they are going to pass a ban on semi-auto weapons that just look like machineguns. Think that they will allow NFA weapons to survive that?

FOPA looked like a tradeoff at the time; but it is likely we would still have gotten an MG ban and no protections at all if Reagan hadn't signed it.

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 04:47 PM
Remember that just eight years later, they are going to pass a ban on semi-auto weapons that just look like machineguns. Think that they will allow NFA weapons to survive that?

FOPA looked like a tradeoff at the time; but it is likely we would still have gotten an MG ban and no protections at all if Reagan hadn't signed it.

Why do you assume that a machine gun ban would have been included with the AWB or that it would have passed had it included the machine gun ban? It barely passed as it was even with the ten year sunset provision. Besides, having a ten year ban on new machine guns seems preferable to me than a permenant one.

If you want to apologise for Reagan's gun grabbing, be my guest, but don't try to blow off the things Reagan did by saying that someone in the future might have done them too.

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 04:49 PM
You might want to find the report from the Senate hearings on the ATF in the late 70's/early 80's before you say you'd prefer the pre-FOPA ATF. The modern-day ATF looks like choir boys in comparision.

Please read the Hardy link in Bartholomew Roberts' post near the top of this thread, its quite informative about all the changes the FOPA implemented.

I am aware of the changes FOPA made but I still don't think the machine gun ban was worth it.

Telperion
July 7, 2004, 05:10 PM
If ATF's behavior after FOPA qualifies as "in-control" I think I'd prefer them out-of-control.No sir, you would not.

Reagan's anti-gun record as governor of California was known long before he became President. I put the primary blame for the MG ban on those most directly responsible: the smarmy New Jersey Democrat who attached it to the FOPA in an unusual parliamentary manuever (to be polite) and the dishonest House leadership that allowed it to pass on a rather dubious voice vote without debate.

By the way, welcome to THR and that's excellent work you do over there at DU. Please say hello to our mutual too, too funny friend for me. :D

benEzra
July 7, 2004, 05:38 PM
Without FOPA '86, we wouldn't have inexpensive SKS's, Mosins, SAR's, etc. either, if I understand correctly.

Standing Wolf
July 7, 2004, 06:11 PM
Thats why we need to draft Susanna Gratia-Hupp into the HouseofRepresentatives or the Senate at the federal level.

Amen!

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 06:13 PM
No sir, you would not.

Reagan's anti-gun record as governor of California was known long before he became President. I put the primary blame for the MG ban on those most directly responsible: the smarmy New Jersey Democrat who attached it to the FOPA in an unusual parliamentary manuever (to be polite) and the dishonest House leadership that allowed it to pass on a rather dubious voice vote without debate.

By the way, welcome to THR and that's excellent work you do over there at DU. Please say hello to our mutual too, too funny friend for me.

Thanks for the welcome.

I place the blame squarely on the president because he was most directly responsible. It's his job to veto bad bills and unconstitutional bills. Hughes may have introduced the amendment and he isn't without blame, but Reagan signed the bill into law. If he hadn't, there wouldn't be a ban on new machine guns.

If Bush renews the AWB will you blame Dianne Feinstein for introducing it or Bush for signing it?

Kharn
July 7, 2004, 06:20 PM
FeebMaster:
Reagan almost vetoed the FOPA because of the MG ban, he signed it only after the NRA told him the ban could be easily defeated in court and that they still wanted it to become law.

Kharn

FeebMaster
July 7, 2004, 06:29 PM
Kharn: Reagan almost vetoed the FOPA because of the MG ban, he signed it only after the NRA told him the ban could be easily defeated in court and that they still wanted it to become law.

I guess Reagan shouldn't have taken the NRA's advice then. Maybe the NRA should have considered their advice before they dispensed it as well.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 7, 2004, 07:07 PM
Why do you assume that a machine gun ban would have been included with the AWB or that it would have passed had it included the machine gun ban?

I assume that because it defies logic not to. However, I will be happy to hear any alternate universe scenarios you wish to propose where a Congressman is willing to vote FOR a ban on semi-autos for the general public; but changes his mind when a machinegun ban is added because that is just too far.

If the votes are there to ban semi-autos, the votes are there to ban machineguns.

If you want to apologise for Reagan's gun grabbing, be my guest, but don't try to blow off the things Reagan did by saying that someone in the future might have done them too.

I don't apologize for anything I have no responsibility for. My point was simply that FOPA offered a lot of protections and it was worth the MG ban to gain them, especially considering the future bills Congress would pass in the 90s.

Here are a few protections you enjoy as a result of FOPA:

Mail order ammo
Gun shows
Private sales of firearms
The right to transport your legally owned firearms across states like California without being arrested.
Due process for FFLs

Now if you would have been happier taking your chances with an MG ban in 1994 and no FOPA protections, I guess we will just have to disagree.

VaniB.
July 7, 2004, 09:10 PM
Hey Bart,

You're thinking is practical, especially relies on reality, and uses way too much reasoning for some on this web site. You're dealing with some on this site who preach casting a vote in the Lucy-in-the-Sky-with-Diamonds column. (AKA Liberterian party :D )

For some of you sillier guys who are too young to know the sublimal message of that old Beatles song, extract the first letter from each noun in that songs name, put em together, and see what drug you've been weened on :p . Every time I read a rediculous rant from one of this sites dreamers, that song automatically starts going through my mind, and I can't help but start chuckling to myself. It would be funnier and easier to laugh at however, if Kerry and the Million Dollar trial lawyer didn't look as though they could very well win by a few votes!

Well Bartholomew, there's a number of sensible folks on this web site. Glad you're one, as your input is very helpfull.

Vanishing Breed

G1FAL
July 7, 2004, 09:52 PM
VaniB., please explain to me how anything is going to change by continuing to elect the same people, and expecting that they will do anyting different?

I dont remember where I saw it, but I once saw the definition of insanity as "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result".

Every year, the RepubliCONs get a little further left, and the demoncraps get even further left. By continuing to aid either of them, you give legitimacy to their behavior.

Eh, but what do I know? I lost all faith in the system back in 2000, when I wasnt allowed to vote because I was active duty military, and havent taken part since then.

texengland
July 8, 2004, 04:00 AM
Feebmaster
Thanks for coming to visit from the DU.

If you enjoyed reading about "Using Anti's tricks against them" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!