Gun Bans

[Big Jim P]

As an aside, I find the last part of the last paragraph to be telling:



A proponent of gun control saying what pro-gun advocates have been saying for years: gun control will not stop criminals from getting guns.

As the situation currently stands, it's true.

But since these guns tend to get into the hands of criminals through straw-purchase, illegal trade by theoretically legitimate trader, or some other friend or family related transaction - controlling guns would affect the availability of guns for criminals.

Totally stop criminals getting guns? No - very unlikely. Make it harder, more expensive, less likely - sure.

And as long as they can get the guns (or use their fists, blunt object knives etc), then the law abiding, innocent civilians should have the right to purchase, carry and use, firearms in self defense, with a minimum of harassment.

The only thing we are proving here is that gun control harasses the law abiding while minimally inconveniencing the criminal predators.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say that well-known means he has to be trusted. You're tilting at windmills.

So he cannot be trusted?

I didn't say that, either. I'm not trying to poison the well, either way.

I presented him as a source, and you apparently felt that I also had to defend his experience - so I also (benevolently, I'm good like that) sourced other examples of how well-represented he was, and other sources referencing him and his experience.

I'm not trying to preach that he MUST be right OR that he must be wrong - I'm citing him as an apparent expert on subject we're discussing, because he provides a source of relevant evidence.

[Big Jim P]

If you do not know who the 8% are, then you cannot be sure it is 8%. Estimates are useful, yes, but are not facts.

Not sure what you think you're arguing here.

Are you still questioning whether ANY illegal trading is done by otherwise (theoretically) legitimate traders?

Because if you're not - you're just quibbling numbers, now.

Actually we are quibbling numbers. Of course there are those who hide their illegal activities behind a legitimate business. Like any criminal they should be prosecuted.

I should say that MOST FFL holders are legitimate, and being so means that they should expect to undergo regular inspection. Which they are required to.

[Republica Newland]

Ignorance and denial are clear characteristics of the gun control movement.

Well, Mr. Chief Justice, when you write the majority opinion declaring this law unconstitutional, people will stop enforcing it. Until then, unfortunately for you, it is legal and enforceable.

It is illegal. Are we even talking about the same law here? Threads got merged,so I hear.

[Grave_n_idle]

And as long as they can get the guns (or use their fists, blunt object knives etc), then the law abiding, innocent civilians should have the right to purchase, carry and use, firearms in self defense, with a minimum of harassment.

That's certainly your opinion.

Me, I prefer a sensible amount of safeguards and precaution.

The only thing we are proving here is that gun control harasses the law abiding while minimally inconveniencing the criminal predators.

There's that confirmation bias again - that hasn't even been vaguely proved. Neither the harassment, nor that gun control would minimally inconvenience 'criminal predators'.

Incidentally - if you read that blog by Wachtel, he actually specifically referred to something you're alluding to here - the theoretical 'law abiding' citizen that has being 'harassed' in your version of the story.

Reviewing spree statistics:

"Here’s one old refrain: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Here’s another: “Let’s enforce the laws we have.” Federal and state laws bar convicted felons, persons adjudged as mentally defective and individuals under active restraining orders from possessing firearms. But our examples aren’t about ordinary criminals. Our chronology of terror includes only one ex-con. True, some of the shooters were emotional basket cases, yet none had been adjudicated mentally ill, the threshold before laws kick in. And while three were under active restraining orders, trusting in a piece of paper to convince an embittered man (all the killers were male) to give up his guns seems a very, very long shot."

Worth noting, he also points out what hollow rhetoric "let's enforce the laws we have" really is.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not sure what you think you're arguing here.

Are you still questioning whether ANY illegal trading is done by otherwise (theoretically) legitimate traders?

Because if you're not - you're just quibbling numbers, now.

Actually we are quibbling numbers. Of course there are those who hide their illegal activities behind a legitimate business. Like any criminal they should be prosecuted.

I should say that MOST FFL holders are legitimate, and being so means that they should expect to undergo regular inspection. Which they are required to.

Go back and read the post where I came in.

[Big Jim P]

So he cannot be trusted?

I didn't say that, either. I'm not trying to poison the well, either way.

I presented him as a source, and you apparently felt that I also had to defend his experience - so I also (benevolently, I'm good like that) sourced other examples of how well-represented he was, and other sources referencing him and his experience.

I'm not trying to preach that he MUST be right OR that he must be wrong - I'm citing him as an apparent expert on subject we're discussing, because he provides a source of relevant evidence.

Fair enough. I read the sources from both sides, and I try to stay as unbiased as I can. However, I like guns, have lived with them all my life, am trained in their use, and believe that everyone has a basic right to self defense (including the use of lethal force) in the face of the predatory instinct in humanity.

Indeed, my only objection to your accusation of confirmation bias is your ignoring the fact that both sides (in this and any argument) use it. I honestly do not think any human can overcome it totally.

[Chernoslavia]

Ignorance and denial are clear characteristics of the gun control movement.

Well, Mr. Chief Justice, when you write the majority opinion declaring this law unconstitutional, people will stop enforcing it. Until then, unfortunately for you, it is legal and enforceable.

Here are some segments of the congressional record broken down to show what was going on.


Parts to note:


Hughes introduces his Machine gun banning amendment and attempts to have it NOT read, which is sneaky, since he's the only one who knows its in there (as illustrated by the little surprised comments from Volkmer).


AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered as a substitute for the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman,
before the amendment is read, I would
like to know if the amendment was
one of those printed in the RECORD
prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so
inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey whether his amendment has
been printed in the RECoRD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in
the RECoaR, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has
it been printed in the RECORD by Mr.
HUOHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it
is not required that the sponsor of the
amendment have it printed in the
REcoRD.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[SNIP- Just the text of the machine gun ban]

Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.

Hughes tries to avoid having it read the first time... remember, no one was expecting this, it wasn't up for a vote the night before, hughes had it entered in sometime between when the april 9th session ended and the early april 10th session began.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD. I ask
my colleagues, in all fairness and ra-
tionality-we only have 3 minutes
left-to give me an opportunity to ex-
plain why machineguns should be
banned.

With 3 minutes left, Huges tries a SECOND time to avoid having the bill read

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regu-
lar order and reserving the right to
object-
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for
a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment.

Hughes tries a THIRD time to avoid having his amendment read

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for


)NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE


a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment, I do not know why anyone
would object to the banning of ma-
chineguns.

Hughes tries a FOURTH time to avoid having his amendment read (remember, he's interrupting it being read each and every time he does this)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.


Hughes, with 140 seconds or so left to debate his bill, has everyone rise to vote, (we don't know if they actually get all the way through reading it... they may be voting on something they haven't even read) it gets slapped down hard


Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's
understanding that the gentleman
from New Jersey moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion,
Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com-
mittee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The question was taken;

NOTE: Mr Chairman (Good Ol, Charlie Rangel, AGAIN can't seem to tell that 298 is bigger than 124, and what a coincidence, he's one of the 124)


and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 124, noes
298, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 73]


So... The electronic vote tally's everything up, and the motion/amendment has been soundly defeated... or has it?

Some guy named Weiss, uses up the last of the time going on a TOTALLY unrelated diatribe about martin luther king and random stuff totally un related to machine guns..


0 1130
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired for consideration of the Hughes
amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]
rise?

Time has run out, Hughes, desperately tries to get some more time to explain why machine guns are bad

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to
rise so that I could get additional time
for the Rules Committee to finish
debate on a number of amendments
that were noticed, have not been
reached and will not be heard, and
that is unfortunate. It is an important
matter.
My unanimous-consent request is
that I have 5 minutes to explain this
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of
order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a
proper Inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state his unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
unanimous request is that I have 5
minutes to explain this vote on ma-
chinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman explain why he wants
that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain
what is pending before the House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.

Because he framed it as a unanimous consent, a simple objection overrules the request by Hughes for more time


The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HUGHES] to the amend-
ment, as amended, offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLKMER]
as a substitute for the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.

This is where the voice vote is supposed to have occurred

The amendment to the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.



So, no record of the vote is made, no objections are made to the declaration (BY Charlie Rangel) that it passed... kind of strange, considering he's been 100% wrong all day in calling these things...

Everyone apparently is getting ready for the ultimate vote on the bill which is up next.





The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
VOLKMER], as a substitute for the Judi-
ciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Well, wouldn't you know it Charlie Rangel calls it for his team AGAIN...


April 10, 1986


RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 286, noes
136, not voting 12, as follows:


Once again, Rangel is wrong, 286 apparently is bigger than 136 and the FOPA passes.



And thats how it happened.

[Big Jim P]

Of course this is not in any way confirmation bias, is it?

I prefer police crime reports, to the crime reports of serving convicts.

If that's bias, well excuse me.

Understood. I prefer to go to the most basic source I can find. Hence my use of the FBI for crime stats.

[Farnhamia]

Well, Mr. Chief Justice, when you write the majority opinion declaring this law unconstitutional, people will stop enforcing it. Until then, unfortunately for you, it is legal and enforceable.

Here are some segments of the congressional record broken down to show what was going on.


Parts to note:


Hughes introduces his Machine gun banning amendment and attempts to have it NOT read, which is sneaky, since he's the only one who knows its in there (as illustrated by the little surprised comments from Volkmer).


AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered as a substitute for the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman,
before the amendment is read, I would
like to know if the amendment was
one of those printed in the RECORD
prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so
inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey whether his amendment has
been printed in the RECoRD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in
the RECoaR, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has
it been printed in the RECORD by Mr.
HUOHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it
is not required that the sponsor of the
amendment have it printed in the
REcoRD.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[SNIP- Just the text of the machine gun ban]

Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.

Hughes tries to avoid having it read the first time... remember, no one was expecting this, it wasn't up for a vote the night before, hughes had it entered in sometime between when the april 9th session ended and the early april 10th session began.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD. I ask
my colleagues, in all fairness and ra-
tionality-we only have 3 minutes
left-to give me an opportunity to ex-
plain why machineguns should be
banned.

With 3 minutes left, Huges tries a SECOND time to avoid having the bill read

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regu-
lar order and reserving the right to
object-
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for
a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment.

Hughes tries a THIRD time to avoid having his amendment read

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for


)NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE


a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment, I do not know why anyone
would object to the banning of ma-
chineguns.

Hughes tries a FOURTH time to avoid having his amendment read (remember, he's interrupting it being read each and every time he does this)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.


Hughes, with 140 seconds or so left to debate his bill, has everyone rise to vote, (we don't know if they actually get all the way through reading it... they may be voting on something they haven't even read) it gets slapped down hard


Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's
understanding that the gentleman
from New Jersey moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion,
Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com-
mittee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The question was taken;

NOTE: Mr Chairman (Good Ol, Charlie Rangel, AGAIN can't seem to tell that 298 is bigger than 124, and what a coincidence, he's one of the 124)


and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 124, noes
298, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 73]


So... The electronic vote tally's everything up, and the motion/amendment has been soundly defeated... or has it?

Some guy named Weiss, uses up the last of the time going on a TOTALLY unrelated diatribe about martin luther king and random stuff totally un related to machine guns..


0 1130
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired for consideration of the Hughes
amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]
rise?

Time has run out, Hughes, desperately tries to get some more time to explain why machine guns are bad

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to
rise so that I could get additional time
for the Rules Committee to finish
debate on a number of amendments
that were noticed, have not been
reached and will not be heard, and
that is unfortunate. It is an important
matter.
My unanimous-consent request is
that I have 5 minutes to explain this
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of
order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a
proper Inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state his unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
unanimous request is that I have 5
minutes to explain this vote on ma-
chinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman explain why he wants
that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain
what is pending before the House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.

Because he framed it as a unanimous consent, a simple objection overrules the request by Hughes for more time


The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HUGHES] to the amend-
ment, as amended, offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLKMER]
as a substitute for the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.

This is where the voice vote is supposed to have occurred

The amendment to the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.



So, no record of the vote is made, no objections are made to the declaration (BY Charlie Rangel) that it passed... kind of strange, considering he's been 100% wrong all day in calling these things...

Everyone apparently is getting ready for the ultimate vote on the bill which is up next.





The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
VOLKMER], as a substitute for the Judi-
ciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Well, wouldn't you know it Charlie Rangel calls it for his team AGAIN...


April 10, 1986


RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 286, noes
136, not voting 12, as follows:


Once again, Rangel is wrong, 286 apparently is bigger than 136 and the FOPA passes.



And thats how it happened.

And why have the courts never struck this abomination down?

[Big Jim P]

Well, Mr. Chief Justice, when you write the majority opinion declaring this law unconstitutional, people will stop enforcing it. Until then, unfortunately for you, it is legal and enforceable.

It is illegal. Are we even talking about the same law here? Threads got merged,so I hear.

You're welcome. I got tired of arguing the same points in two different threads, and asked for the merge.

[Big Jim P]

Here are some segments of the congressional record broken down to show what was going on.


Parts to note:


Hughes introduces his Machine gun banning amendment and attempts to have it NOT read, which is sneaky, since he's the only one who knows its in there (as illustrated by the little surprised comments from Volkmer).


AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered as a substitute for the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman,
before the amendment is read, I would
like to know if the amendment was
one of those printed in the RECORD
prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so
inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey whether his amendment has
been printed in the RECoRD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in
the RECoaR, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has
it been printed in the RECORD by Mr.
HUOHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it
is not required that the sponsor of the
amendment have it printed in the
REcoRD.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[SNIP- Just the text of the machine gun ban]

Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.

Hughes tries to avoid having it read the first time... remember, no one was expecting this, it wasn't up for a vote the night before, hughes had it entered in sometime between when the april 9th session ended and the early april 10th session began.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD. I ask
my colleagues, in all fairness and ra-
tionality-we only have 3 minutes
left-to give me an opportunity to ex-
plain why machineguns should be
banned.

With 3 minutes left, Huges tries a SECOND time to avoid having the bill read

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regu-
lar order and reserving the right to
object-
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for
a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment.

Hughes tries a THIRD time to avoid having his amendment read

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for


)NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE


a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment, I do not know why anyone
would object to the banning of ma-
chineguns.

Hughes tries a FOURTH time to avoid having his amendment read (remember, he's interrupting it being read each and every time he does this)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.


Hughes, with 140 seconds or so left to debate his bill, has everyone rise to vote, (we don't know if they actually get all the way through reading it... they may be voting on something they haven't even read) it gets slapped down hard


Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's
understanding that the gentleman
from New Jersey moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion,
Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com-
mittee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The question was taken;

NOTE: Mr Chairman (Good Ol, Charlie Rangel, AGAIN can't seem to tell that 298 is bigger than 124, and what a coincidence, he's one of the 124)


and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 124, noes
298, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 73]


So... The electronic vote tally's everything up, and the motion/amendment has been soundly defeated... or has it?

Some guy named Weiss, uses up the last of the time going on a TOTALLY unrelated diatribe about martin luther king and random stuff totally un related to machine guns..


0 1130
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired for consideration of the Hughes
amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]
rise?

Time has run out, Hughes, desperately tries to get some more time to explain why machine guns are bad

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to
rise so that I could get additional time
for the Rules Committee to finish
debate on a number of amendments
that were noticed, have not been
reached and will not be heard, and
that is unfortunate. It is an important
matter.
My unanimous-consent request is
that I have 5 minutes to explain this
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of
order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a
proper Inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state his unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
unanimous request is that I have 5
minutes to explain this vote on ma-
chinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman explain why he wants
that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain
what is pending before the House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.

Because he framed it as a unanimous consent, a simple objection overrules the request by Hughes for more time


The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HUGHES] to the amend-
ment, as amended, offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLKMER]
as a substitute for the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.

This is where the voice vote is supposed to have occurred

The amendment to the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.



So, no record of the vote is made, no objections are made to the declaration (BY Charlie Rangel) that it passed... kind of strange, considering he's been 100% wrong all day in calling these things...

Everyone apparently is getting ready for the ultimate vote on the bill which is up next.





The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
VOLKMER], as a substitute for the Judi-
ciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Well, wouldn't you know it Charlie Rangel calls it for his team AGAIN...


April 10, 1986


RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 286, noes
136, not voting 12, as follows:


Once again, Rangel is wrong, 286 apparently is bigger than 136 and the FOPA passes.



And thats how it happened.

And why have the courts never struck this abomination down?

Well, I am guessing that no one felt it was sufficient illegal (unconstitutional) to challenge it.

In the past, I have stated (to the gun-ban crowd): Don't like that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms? Then work to change it. The mechanism is there to do so. Use it.

That I can and do respect.

I now offer the same challenge to the pro-gun crowd: Don't like a gun control law? Then work to change it. The mechanism is in place to do so. Use it.

[Chernoslavia]

And why have the courts never struck this abomination down?

Well, I am guessing that no one felt it was sufficient illegal (unconstitutional) to challenge it.

In the past, I have stated (to the gun-ban crowd): Don't like that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms? Then work to change it. The mechanism is there to do so. Use it.

That I can and do respect.

I now offer the same challenge to the pro-gun crowd: Don't like a gun control law? Then work to change it. The mechanism is in place to do so. Use it.

Id love to use that mechanism, but due to what happened in CT and with what Feinstein's proposing, it isnt a good time to work on changing it.

[AiliailiA]

As an aside, I find the last part of the last paragraph to be telling:

"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

A proponent of gun control saying what pro-gun advocates have been saying for years: gun control will not stop criminals from getting guns.

Who are you quoting?

Gun control will obviously never stop all "criminals" from getting guns. There may be a good argument, once your nations criminals are all heavily armed, for giving up on gun control and arming the law-abiding. Hell, give 'em coupons to buy guns, so the law-abiding poor have some gun rights too.

However, this is a strawman argument. Again and again, you pretend that gun control aims to disarm all criminals by disarming everyone. It does not. Registry of guns, safe storage of guns, limitations on sale and use according to type of gun ... are all forms of gun control. They aim primarily at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a crime, and only incidentally do they impinge on the rights of legal owners.

The worst enemy of gun rights is the "I have a right to a gun so I can resist tyranny" proponent of it.

Self-defense is a stronger argument. Hunting and sport are viable arguments, but I feel that depends very much on the hunting and sport guns being mainly owned by a more responsible and less fearful class of people than those who own guns for self-defense. "Collecting" is something I struggle to find any point to, whether it's antique guns or antique Barbi dolls, but not having any good reason to ban it I must allow it, providing that a person with a great many guns takes greater precautions against them being stolen than a person with only one or two does.

The really-quite-stupid Second Amendment has provided the same basis to all kinds of gun owners to legally buy and keep a gun. Gun rights could be a good thing, but you've got criminals in your tree-house.

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians. You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house. You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future".

[Grave_n_idle]

Fair enough. I read the sources from both sides, and I try to stay as unbiased as I can. However, I like guns, have lived with them all my life, am trained in their use, and believe that everyone has a basic right to self defense (including the use of lethal force)

With you so far - I was something of a rarity in the UK, since I was not only an advocate for the right to bear arms, but also someone who had some experience.

...in the face of the predatory instinct in humanity.

But you see, here we start getting into problematic territory for me - if we're admitting that humans are fundamentally bad, then you're arguing for trying to fix a problem by creating a new, additional problem.

Indeed, my only objection to your accusation of confirmation bias is your ignoring the fact that both sides (in this and any argument) use it. I honestly do not think any human can overcome it totally.

I haven't argued against the idea that 'both sides' are victim to confirmation bias. In fact, I was very specific - I was only talking about you, choosing to just write-off a source.

[Big Jim P]

As an aside, I find the last part of the last paragraph to be telling:



A proponent of gun control saying what pro-gun advocates have been saying for years: gun control will not stop criminals from getting guns.

Who are you quoting? ¹

Gun control will obviously never stop all "criminals" from getting guns. There may be a good argument, once your nations criminals are all heavily armed, for giving up on gun control and arming the law-abiding. Hell, give 'em coupons to buy guns, so the law-abiding poor have some gun rights too. ²

However, this is a strawman argument. Again and again, you pretend that gun control aims to disarm all criminals by disarming everyone. It does not. Registry of guns, safe storage of guns, limitations on sale and use according to type of gun ... are all forms of gun control. They aim primarily at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a crime, and only incidentally do they impinge on the rights of legal owners.²

The worst enemy of gun rights is the "I have a right to a gun so I can resist tyranny" proponent of it. ³

Self-defense is a stronger argument. Hunting and sport are viable arguments, but I feel that depends very much on the hunting and sport guns being mainly owned by a more responsible and less fearful class of people than those who own guns for self-defense. "Collecting" is something I struggle to find any point to, whether it's antique guns or antique Barbi dolls, but not having any good reason to ban it I must allow it, providing that a person with a great many guns takes greater precautions against them being stolen than a person with only one or two does.⁴

The really-quite-stupid Second Amendment has provided the same basis to all kinds of gun owners to legally buy and keep a gun. Gun rights could be a good thing, but you've got criminals in your tree-house.⁵

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians. You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house. You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future".⁶

1:I am quoting a link provided by GnI.

2: The right to self defense also includes defending against unarmed criminals.

3: Agreed. That might have been the first reason behind the second amendment, but now it is the last.

4: Self defense is the best arguement and the primary reason to own a gun. Hunting? Not so much, but many do depend on the meat brought in by hunting. Sport? Killing an animal for a trophy is wrong (see my previous sentence), but shooting targets is fun. It is a hobby that harms no one.

5: I have several criminals in my family tree. I am not them. If you are referring to those hiding criminal activities behind the veneer gun rights, then we do. Just like every other legal right, there are those who will exploit them.

6: I will respond to this one in my next post.

[Big Jim P]

6:

[snip]

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians.¹ You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house². You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future"².

[snip]

1: I have, and will not only renounce but declare that any of the mentioned actions are wrong.

2: They are not wholly wrong: Every time gun-owners conceded to a demand from the gun control proponents, more demands are presented. The only real conclusion is that you will not be satisfied until all guns are eliminated from society. Now I would love to live in a peaceful society where the predatory nature of humanity does not exist and guns are not necessary, but I live in reality. A vast majority have no ill will to others (even assuming they notice them), but there are a few for whom the average citizen is just a victim.

3: "I reserve what right to break a law in the future"? If you gun-control supporters manage to get your agenda passed, then I will (as I have always done) abide by the law of the land. As I have posted before: I resent that you assume my attitudes and would prosecute me for my (potential) future actions. Until I have actually committed a crime, do NOT assume I have criminal intent. That, along with gun control peoples refusal to even bother to learn what they are talking about is the main reason I have no respect for the gun-control movement, and damned little respect for damned fewer gun control advocates personally.

[Republica Newland]

As an aside, I find the last part of the last paragraph to be telling:



A proponent of gun control saying what pro-gun advocates have been saying for years: gun control will not stop criminals from getting guns.

Who are you quoting?

Gun control will obviously never stop all "criminals" from getting guns. There may be a good argument, once your nations criminals are all heavily armed, for giving up on gun control and arming the law-abiding. Hell, give 'em coupons to buy guns, so the law-abiding poor have some gun rights too.

However, this is a strawman argument. Again and again, you pretend that gun control aims to disarm all criminals by disarming everyone. It does not. Registry of guns, safe storage of guns, limitations on sale and use according to type of gun ... are all forms of gun control. They aim primarily at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a crime, and only incidentally do they impinge on the rights of legal owners.

The worst enemy of gun rights is the "I have a right to a gun so I can resist tyranny" proponent of it.

Self-defense is a stronger argument. Hunting and sport are viable arguments, but I feel that depends very much on the hunting and sport guns being mainly owned by a more responsible and less fearful class of people than those who own guns for self-defense. "Collecting" is something I struggle to find any point to, whether it's antique guns or antique Barbi dolls, but not having any good reason to ban it I must allow it, providing that a person with a great many guns takes greater precautions against them being stolen than a person with only one or two does.

The really-quite-stupid Second Amendment has provided the same basis to all kinds of gun owners to legally buy and keep a gun. Gun rights could be a good thing, but you've got criminals in your tree-house.

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians. You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house. You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future".

Gun control as it has been,is,and most probably,will be practiced in the United States does nothing to defend from criminals or the mentally insane,all it does is stepping on the tows of the lawful gun owners,and,may I add,is exceptionally good at it.

I am 100% pro gun control.And 100% against gun prohibition. Hoopty-doopty-doo. Too bad that the way it is practiced is a piss poor excuse of a policy.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Who got nuked during the civil war?

they burned several cities to the ground, which was about the worst thing they were capable of at the time, if you can't see the similarity I can only feel sorry for you.

There is a difference between putting down a rebellion and leveling cities,
taking out infrastructure, and decimating the population.

yes there is and they did both.
learn some history please.

In addition I'm not saying that it would ever necessarily come to taking up arms against the government.

The US is the most powerful country in the world militarily, in order to protect ourselves from government tyranny we need all the help we can get.

consistency please.

I'm not saying civilians should own firearms, I'm saying they should have the right to, provided they are of good mental health and have no criminal record.

And you have provided nothing to justify this opinion.

The difference between burning cities to the ground and nuking them is, you can rebuild a city after it gets burned to the ground. Nuking a city means nobody can safely live there for thousands of years.

[AiliailiA]

Well, I am guessing that no one felt it was sufficient illegal (unconstitutional) to challenge it.

In the past, I have stated (to the gun-ban crowd): Don't like that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms? Then work to change it. The mechanism is there to do so. Use it.

That I can and do respect.

I now offer the same challenge to the pro-gun crowd: Don't like a gun control law? Then work to change it. The mechanism is in place to do so. Use it.

Id love to use that mechanism, but due to what happened in CT and with what Feinstein's proposing, it isnt a good time to work on changing it.

No, but you can defend the status quo. And you will.

The renewed mandate of the President and the political advantage granted to Congressional Democrats by the negative and self-conflicted actions of Congressional Republicans could have been turned to some good. There could be tweaks to Obamacare to make it more acceptable to both sides. There could be a real debate about how to cut forward expenditures on the military to account for the future liability in pensions and health care costs for veterans of GWB's wars (ie, an agreement to neither expand nor contract military spending). There could be bravery on both sides, to limit the 'entitlement' which dwarfs unemployment welfare or food stamp programs: the entitlement to aged pension and aged health care regardless of means.

Democrats and Republicans have got together on many of these issues before.

Unfortunately, I see Democrats being drawn into a fight they've been in before, and should know no side wins. Gun control costs a lot of political capital and returns very little in votes, because it makes very little difference over two or four years. It also hits both sides: a good NRA rating keeps some Democrats in their seats, and however they vote they will suffer a backlash if their party imposes gun law from a federal level.

I also wish that the Gun Control / Gun Rights issue was not so influenced by headline events like that despicable spree killing in CT. It gives illegitimate power to individual citizens (criminals btw) to influence a national agenda. Does it even matter if Adam Lanza is pro-gun or pro-control? Does it matter if he's a Democrat or a Republican? He had enormous influence on the agenda and he should not have had it.

[Big Jim P]

Id love to use that mechanism, but due to what happened in CT and with what Feinstein's proposing, it isnt a good time to work on changing it.

No, but you can defend the status quo. And you will.

The renewed mandate of the President and the political advantage granted to Congressional Democrats by the negative and self-conflicted actions of Congressional Republicans could have been turned to some good. There could be tweaks to Obamacare to make it more acceptable to both sides. There could be a real debate about how to cut forward expenditures on the military to account for the future liability in pensions and health care costs for veterans of GWB's wars (ie, an agreement to neither expand nor contract military spending). There could be bravery on both sides, to limit the 'entitlement' which dwarfs unemployment welfare or food stamp programs: the entitlement to aged pension and aged health care regardless of means.

Democrats and Republicans have got together on many of these issues before.

Unfortunately, I see Democrats being drawn into a fight they've been in before, and should know no side wins. Gun control costs a lot of political capital and returns very little in votes, because it makes very little difference over two or four years. It also hits both sides: a good NRA rating keeps some Democrats in their seats, and however they vote they will suffer a backlash if their party imposes gun law from a federal level.

I also wish that the Gun Control / Gun Rights issue was not so influenced by headline events like that despicable spree killing in CT. It gives illegitimate power to individual citizens (criminals btw) to influence a national agenda. Does it even matter if Adam Lanza is pro-gun or pro-control? Does it matter if he's a Democrat or a Republican? He had enormous influence on the agenda and he should not have had it.

OK, now I agree. Why do criminals have such an effect? Why are the law-abiding people punished for the actions of the people that make the news?

Why are Christians tarred with the same brush as the WBC?

[Chernoslavia]

As an aside, I find the last part of the last paragraph to be telling:



A proponent of gun control saying what pro-gun advocates have been saying for years: gun control will not stop criminals from getting guns.

Who are you quoting?

Gun control will obviously never stop all "criminals" from getting guns. There may be a good argument, once your nations criminals are all heavily armed, for giving up on gun control and arming the law-abiding. Hell, give 'em coupons to buy guns, so the law-abiding poor have some gun rights too.

However, this is a strawman argument. Again and again, you pretend that gun control aims to disarm all criminals by disarming everyone. It does not. Registry of guns, safe storage of guns, limitations on sale and use according to type of gun ... are all forms of gun control. They aim primarily at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a crime, and only incidentally do they impinge on the rights of legal owners.

The worst enemy of gun rights is the "I have a right to a gun so I can resist tyranny" proponent of it.

Self-defense is a stronger argument. Hunting and sport are viable arguments, but I feel that depends very much on the hunting and sport guns being mainly owned by a more responsible and less fearful class of people than those who own guns for self-defense. "Collecting" is something I struggle to find any point to, whether it's antique guns or antique Barbi dolls, but not having any good reason to ban it I must allow it, providing that a person with a great many guns takes greater precautions against them being stolen than a person with only one or two does.

The really-quite-stupid Second Amendment has provided the same basis to all kinds of gun owners to legally buy and keep a gun. Gun rights could be a good thing, but you've got criminals in your tree-house.

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians. You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house. You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future".

1934 - National Firearms Act passes, it taxes the transfer of full-autos, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. to civilians. $200 at the time (and this was during the Great Depression) was like 2,000 in today's money.

1968 - GCA passes, it bans further import of NFA regulated firearms for civilian sales. It also bans people that have a record of domestic violence which I am in favor of. The ban of foreign NFA weapons was not necessary however.

1984 - ATF re-edits a law that now treats any open-bolt firearms regardless if its semi-automatic as ''machine guns'', forcing people that legally own former title 1 open bolt firearms to pay the $200 federal tax stamp.

1986 - Hughes Amendment bans further registration of full-autos for civilians.

1989 - The Assault Weapons Import Ban bans further importation of semi-automatic rifles by name to civilians. They just banned firearms by name, some didnt even need to have certain features, some didnt even need to be semi-automatic to be banned. They just indiscriminately listed the names of whatever firearms they felt like banning. The PSG-1 for example holds a standard capacity of 5 or 10 rounds and the only so-called ''assault'' feature it has is a handgrip.

1994 - I dont think an explanation is necessary for this one right? Anyways the ban sunset in 2004.

So having said this I think its pretty obvious that the gun-control crowd will not stop until there is a complete ban on every single firearm. Like Jim said, whenever the pro-gun crowd suggests a license or mandatory training, the anti-gun crowd demands more.

[Republica Newland]

... but I reserve the right to break the law in future

It's really pathetic and hypocritical to bring that up,considering the staggering number of gun phobics that have not hesitated to share their fantasies with us whenever this topic is brought up,fantasies including but not limited to the mass killing of "disobeying" civilians by carpet or nuclear bombing.

So us stating that we will defend ourselves and our rights in the face of a potentially tyrannical government,even resorting to violence,is child's play compared to what the other side has brought to the table.

[AiliailiA]

Ignorance and denial are clear characteristics of the gun control movement.

You're aware that the whole basis of this thread is the idea that a law that has been on the books for years was not passed legally, and not once since then has anyone managed to bring this to the attention of the courts, not even the various honest-to-god legal experts working for the pro-gun movement, right? Sounds like a whole steaming pile of ignorance and denial to me.

Nah. Threads aren't about the stuff in the OP. Where did you get that silly idea?

It's a gun control thread. It said so in the title ("Why do we enforce an illegal law? (gun control related)." Bolding mine.)

The nonsense about procedure in the passing of the federal bill is what is known in chess openings as a "gambit". It was lost in the first two pages, but it got the thread to two pages which would not have happened if the OP had been only:

Fully-automatic firearms should not be banned, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or for sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the states from government tyranny and the people's rights to keep and bear arms.

It would have been locked or merged, being obviously redundant to the Gun Bans thread, except for the spurious idea that the OP introduced a point of law.

That's a gambit. It succeeded for a while, but now the threads have been merged it achieved nothing but confusion.

[Big Jim P]

Who are you quoting?

Gun control will obviously never stop all "criminals" from getting guns. There may be a good argument, once your nations criminals are all heavily armed, for giving up on gun control and arming the law-abiding. Hell, give 'em coupons to buy guns, so the law-abiding poor have some gun rights too.

However, this is a strawman argument. Again and again, you pretend that gun control aims to disarm all criminals by disarming everyone. It does not. Registry of guns, safe storage of guns, limitations on sale and use according to type of gun ... are all forms of gun control. They aim primarily at keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them in a crime, and only incidentally do they impinge on the rights of legal owners.

The worst enemy of gun rights is the "I have a right to a gun so I can resist tyranny" proponent of it.

Self-defense is a stronger argument. Hunting and sport are viable arguments, but I feel that depends very much on the hunting and sport guns being mainly owned by a more responsible and less fearful class of people than those who own guns for self-defense. "Collecting" is something I struggle to find any point to, whether it's antique guns or antique Barbi dolls, but not having any good reason to ban it I must allow it, providing that a person with a great many guns takes greater precautions against them being stolen than a person with only one or two does.

The really-quite-stupid Second Amendment has provided the same basis to all kinds of gun owners to legally buy and keep a gun. Gun rights could be a good thing, but you've got criminals in your tree-house.

What you, and other NRA types should do, is to specifically renounce the right to shoot cops, soldiers, tax collectors, civil servants or elected politicians. You should kick those "resist tyranny" nutters out of the gun rights tree-house. You should renounce them. Because it undermines the whole law-abiding v. criminal distinction of who should have a gun when some of you law-abiding gun owners are looking shifty at the law and muttering "... but I reserve the right to break the law in future".

1934 - National Firearms Act passes, it taxes the transfer of full-autos, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc. to civilians. $200 at the time (and this was during the Great Depression) was like 2,000 in today's money.

1968 - GCA passes, it bans further import of NFA regulated firearms for civilian sales. It also bans people that have a record of domestic violence which I am in favor of. The ban of foreign NFA weapons was not necessary however.

1984 - ATF re-edits a law that now treats any open-bolt firearms regardless if its semi-automatic as ''machine guns'', forcing people that legally own former title 1 open bolt firearms to pay the $200 federal tax stamp.

1986 - Hughes Amendment bans further registration of full-autos for civilians.

1989 - The Assault Weapons Import Ban bans further importation of semi-automatic rifles by name to civilians. They just banned firearms by name, some didnt even need to have certain features, some didnt even need to be semi-automatic to be banned. They just indiscriminately listed the names of whatever firearms they felt like banning. The PSG-1 for example holds a standard capacity of 5 or 10 rounds and the only so-called ''assault'' feature it has is a handgrip.

1994 - I dont think an explanation is necessary for this one right? Anyways the ban sunset in 2004.

So having said this I think its pretty obvious that the gun-control crowd will not stop until there is a complete ban on every single firearm. Like Jim said, whenever the pro-gun crowd suggests a license or mandatory training, the anti-gun crowd demands more.

And they roundly ignore or criticize when a simple licensing proposal is put forward, by a couple of reasonable guys.

Why? It doesn't restrict firearms enough.

The other side thinks it restrict firearms too much.
What is a reasonable person to do?