“The NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one. It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.
In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986. It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the Hughes Amendment as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.
If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.” It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress -- and that’s saying something.
It has been reported that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.” That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came. And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.
If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.
In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace. It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.”
This is also an example of a law that the "direct problem" isn't proportionate to the invasive level of "the solution".
That is: BATFE, and the persnicketiness of allowed receiver types and pins and "Oh, look, it looks full-auto now" and all the paperwork and hassle of staying legal. (Depending on how much they want to hassle you).
If we ever approach attempting sanity here again, I'd like to also note that Communications, Cameras, and Drones can be both "Arms" and "Self-defense items" .
It’s telling that at checkpoints in war zones, they often could give a shit about your AK, but if you have a fancy radio, computer controller, or telephoto lens, get ready to experience enhancement.
“The NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one. It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.
In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986. It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the Hughes Amendment as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.
If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.” It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress -- and that’s saying something.
It has been reported that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.” That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came. And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.
If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.
In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace. It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/how_the_federal_government_nullified_the_second_amendment_to_ban_automatic_firearms.html
This is really well thought out. This should be its own post rather than a reply to my shitpost
It has been posted before.
See intellectual property, copyright, and hate speech for your First example.
"Corporations are not people" is actually a line that can eliminate the entire damn thing in one fell swoop.
Thousand of things simply don't work if things like, oh, banks don't have basically the protections of humans from 'search and seizure'.
This is also an example of a law that the "direct problem" isn't proportionate to the invasive level of "the solution".
That is: BATFE, and the persnicketiness of allowed receiver types and pins and "Oh, look, it looks full-auto now" and all the paperwork and hassle of staying legal. (Depending on how much they want to hassle you).
If we ever approach attempting sanity here again, I'd like to also note that Communications, Cameras, and Drones can be both "Arms" and "Self-defense items" .
It’s telling that at checkpoints in war zones, they often could give a shit about your AK, but if you have a fancy radio, computer controller, or telephoto lens, get ready to experience enhancement.
You think that's bad.
"It's a sheet of random numbers."
GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND! excited standing around and radio chatter commences
"Go go go, they're distracted!"
Drops cigarettes and fake jewelry while running
Shiny!
Wait. I'm not the darn press. I'm not supposed to fall for this baloney.
There was a clip today of protesters crying for the police to help them. Just look up wolverine claws. "Someone call the cops."
The police can just tell them to call 911 for an amberlamps, and for anything else, file a police report online.
That sounds like a lot of fun