alan
Member
The headline reads Restrictions On Part Imports Remain After Clinton Ban Ends, to which one might inquiry, as follows. Exactly why are we, the law abiding saddled with such consummate stupidity? Is there anything sacred or holy about 18USC, 922r, or for that matter George Bush's 1989 Executive Order, or CFR 178.89? One would think not, so why are we seemingly stuck with such stupidity.
Why on earth are semi-automatic versions of the FN FAL, the HK 91, the ubiquitous Kalashnikov, or any number of other entirely serviceable long guns precluded from import? There is absolutely no good or valid reason for such prohibition, the mere enactment of some idiotic legislation, or the issuing of an even dumber Executive Order do not support such prohibition, no way in hell do they.
Remember folks, amendments to the constitution have been undone, Prohibition for example. It's imposition took an amendment to the constitution, and getting rid of it took the same thing. How much simpler is it to vacate an Executive Order issued by a previous president, one that a questionable bureaucracy literally wrapped it's legs around, as one would greet a long lost lover. Legislation can also be repealed or otherwise changed, why not this Unsoeld Amendment?
Some might counsel against going after the above, advising that we not rock the boat, that we accept what tiny crumbs we might be given. That's one school of thought, however there is another way to look at the things. Are the anti gunners ever satisfied with whatever small crumb or small victory they might, at any moment in time, obtain, it doesn't so appear. They keep pushing, and you know something, they have made, over the years, significant headway, toward attaining their desired goals, their stated goals..
A proper descriptive phrase might be "proactive", as opposed to reactive. Why is it that our side seems reactive, rather than proactive, and does it have to be this way? Anyone have any ideas? By the way, it seems that S. 1431 is still kicking around. Look out for that one.
Why on earth are semi-automatic versions of the FN FAL, the HK 91, the ubiquitous Kalashnikov, or any number of other entirely serviceable long guns precluded from import? There is absolutely no good or valid reason for such prohibition, the mere enactment of some idiotic legislation, or the issuing of an even dumber Executive Order do not support such prohibition, no way in hell do they.
Remember folks, amendments to the constitution have been undone, Prohibition for example. It's imposition took an amendment to the constitution, and getting rid of it took the same thing. How much simpler is it to vacate an Executive Order issued by a previous president, one that a questionable bureaucracy literally wrapped it's legs around, as one would greet a long lost lover. Legislation can also be repealed or otherwise changed, why not this Unsoeld Amendment?
Some might counsel against going after the above, advising that we not rock the boat, that we accept what tiny crumbs we might be given. That's one school of thought, however there is another way to look at the things. Are the anti gunners ever satisfied with whatever small crumb or small victory they might, at any moment in time, obtain, it doesn't so appear. They keep pushing, and you know something, they have made, over the years, significant headway, toward attaining their desired goals, their stated goals..
A proper descriptive phrase might be "proactive", as opposed to reactive. Why is it that our side seems reactive, rather than proactive, and does it have to be this way? Anyone have any ideas? By the way, it seems that S. 1431 is still kicking around. Look out for that one.
