I like hollow gestures as much as the next guy but something that can actually happen is Constitutional Carry and 2A Sanctuary. What is going on in Florida? We should be following Missouri's lead (can't believe I wrote that).
There are probably draconian laws (or the dreaded "rules") pending and if they pass it is too late. You cannot, as you point out, fight the Nation-State. The time to act is now. Someone has to take the lead. Obviously not the NRA.
I agree with your premise, but I must pick one small nit:
"And machineguns are the real red herring on the NFA list. There are about 180,000 machineguns legally available for civilian ownership, and you don’t need all the fingers on one hand to count the number that have ever been used to commit a crime. Why, you ask? Because machineguns are incredibly expensive. Prices start at around $10,000, so anyone who can afford one can afford a quality gun safe."
I'd be a little leery about bringing that one up because machine guns are regularly touted by anti-gunners as a proof of concept. You say that machineguns shouldn't be regulated under the NFA because they're rare and expensive, but the reason they're rare and expensive is due to another restrictive provision of the 1986 FOPA, which makes owning or transferring a machine gun made after that year illegal.
So, basically, your argument is that the NFA is not needed because gun bans work. Not exactly a position I'd want to stake out.
SCOTUS used the same circular logic in the Heller decision. They basically said that the Second Amendment only protects arms that are "in common use", which means the restrictions on machine guns don't violate the 2nd Amendment because they aren't in common use, but at least part of the reason they aren't in common use is because of the laws that restrict them. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
That's really gonna bite future generations. Han Solo's blaster and Luke Skywalker's lightsaber will be illegal to own because when they're first invented, they won't be in common use and can, therefore, be restricted without violating the Second Amendment. The government will be able to have them to use against us, but we won't be able to avail ourselves of equal weaponry in reply.
They've always been the Bureau of AnTi Fun for me. I'm pretty sure that if given the choice to elect someone to this position, it would result in a radical overhaul which it has been in desperate need of for a very long time.
My impression of 'Fast and Furious" was that it was an attempt by Obama and Co. to pad the statistics that American gun laws were allowing guns to flow south across the border.
Unfortunately ATF like most everything the Federal Government does isn't going bye- bye.
Politicians should not be allowed to appoint/pick/select anyone except their politically
powerless staff. I would rather draw names out of a hat or throw darts at a dart board with
names, than let sleazy politicians pick, appoint POLITICAL PATRONAGE WHORES !!!!!!!!!!!!
Our founding fathers created a government with three branches to provide checks and
balances, but sleazy politicians have circumvented that and endowed themselves with the
power to pick/appoint members of the judicial branch as well as powerful agencies. We
the people need to stop this CRAP by whatever means !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like hollow gestures as much as the next guy but something that can actually happen is Constitutional Carry and 2A Sanctuary. What is going on in Florida? We should be following Missouri's lead (can't believe I wrote that).
There are probably draconian laws (or the dreaded "rules") pending and if they pass it is too late. You cannot, as you point out, fight the Nation-State. The time to act is now. Someone has to take the lead. Obviously not the NRA.
Who?
I agree with your premise, but I must pick one small nit:
"And machineguns are the real red herring on the NFA list. There are about 180,000 machineguns legally available for civilian ownership, and you don’t need all the fingers on one hand to count the number that have ever been used to commit a crime. Why, you ask? Because machineguns are incredibly expensive. Prices start at around $10,000, so anyone who can afford one can afford a quality gun safe."
I'd be a little leery about bringing that one up because machine guns are regularly touted by anti-gunners as a proof of concept. You say that machineguns shouldn't be regulated under the NFA because they're rare and expensive, but the reason they're rare and expensive is due to another restrictive provision of the 1986 FOPA, which makes owning or transferring a machine gun made after that year illegal.
So, basically, your argument is that the NFA is not needed because gun bans work. Not exactly a position I'd want to stake out.
SCOTUS used the same circular logic in the Heller decision. They basically said that the Second Amendment only protects arms that are "in common use", which means the restrictions on machine guns don't violate the 2nd Amendment because they aren't in common use, but at least part of the reason they aren't in common use is because of the laws that restrict them. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
That's really gonna bite future generations. Han Solo's blaster and Luke Skywalker's lightsaber will be illegal to own because when they're first invented, they won't be in common use and can, therefore, be restricted without violating the Second Amendment. The government will be able to have them to use against us, but we won't be able to avail ourselves of equal weaponry in reply.
Abolish them now and Chipman with them.
They've always been the Bureau of AnTi Fun for me. I'm pretty sure that if given the choice to elect someone to this position, it would result in a radical overhaul which it has been in desperate need of for a very long time.
My impression of 'Fast and Furious" was that it was an attempt by Obama and Co. to pad the statistics that American gun laws were allowing guns to flow south across the border.
Unfortunately ATF like most everything the Federal Government does isn't going bye- bye.
At least not yet.