The House passed the budget with the HPA!

Racer88 said:
View attachment 33134

Punishment.... Not even the death penalty deters crime.


View attachment 33135
Click to expand...
Founded by lawyer hippies in '69. Do some searching on their past directors. Many left of Lenin. ACLU types.

It may be true that the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime. But you know what it does? It rids society of a killer. It's like war. The best way to win is kill the enemy. When enough of them are dead or fear death and surrender, the war ends.

They also point out that the certainty of getting caught is a deterrent. Why would someone be afraid of getting caught if they didnt care about the punishment - their sentence. Sounds like hippie lawyer double talk to me. :)
 
Racer88 said:
BINGO. I don't care about the $200. Though, a Right shouldn't be taxed.
Click to expand...
The $200 doesn't matter to me either, but I learned today that it may well open the way to killing the NFA, if indeed the tax is reduced to $0 by an act of Congress.

In 1937 Sonzinsky v. United States upheld the NFA, because it was a Tax, even though it ended up regulating certain firearms and other items.

If the NFA is no longer taxing, it may be found unconstitutional.

This is from a GOA post on FB


"The $0 tax is clearly not everything we wanted, but it’s NOT a compromise—because it would be repealing existing infringements on gun owners. Not only that, it would serve to both proliferate NFA firearms under the common use test and give us greater leverage to challenge the NFA in court. After all, the NFA tax was only considered legal by the Supreme Court in 1937 because it was determined to be a tax. If Congress does away with the tax, then it’s no longer a legal restriction under SCOTUS precedent, and that throws the entire NFA into jeopardy—which is something we would champion"
 
James Moore said:
The $200 doesn't matter to me either, but I learned today that it may well open the way to killing the NFA, if indeed the tax is reduced to $0 by an act of Congress.
Click to expand...
Not a chance. It will take a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, which will never ever happen.

James Moore said:
If the NFA is no longer taxing, it may be found unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Not a chance. Courts have found bans on magazines and specific firearms "constitutional." Anyone who thinks the Judicial Branch will rescind any part of the NFA is dreaming.
 
That goes back to the 3 "D's".
1 Don't say what you're going to do.
2. Don't say what you're doing.
3. Don't say what you did.
 
Racer88 said:
Punishment.... Not even the death penalty deters crime.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I call BS on this document originating from the Nobama/Holderdick admin. :rolleyes: Holder was even worse than Garland if you can believe that.

Secondly, I believe public execution would be a deterrent to crime. Perps might not give a shit about their victims, but might care enough to not bring shame to their family.

Thirdly, prison is entirely too "soft" to be a deterrent. Torture and chain gangs should be the rule--those "human rights" weenies can and will go to hell...

Finally, I do not believe in "life" in prison unless the sentence involves hard labor. Murderers, rapists, etc. can go straight to the guillotine. It should NOT take 20yrs to execute someone due to countless appeals. Attorneys and staff involved in nuisance appeals should go to jail if their appeal turns out to be an unfounded waste of time. This would drop the number of appeals to near zero... ;)
 
Bobster said:
Firstly, I call BS on this document originating from the Nobama/Holderdick admin. :rolleyes: Holder was even worse than Garland if you can believe that.

Secondly, I believe public execution would be a deterrent to crime. Perps might not give a shit about their victims, but might care enough to not bring shame to their family.

Thirdly, prison is entirely too "soft" to be a deterrent. Torture and chain gangs should be the rule--those "human rights" weenies can and will go to hell...

Finally, I do not believe in "life" in prison unless the sentence involves hard labor. Murderers, rapists, etc. can go straight to the guillotine. It should NOT take 20yrs to execute someone due to countless appeals. Attorneys and staff involved in nuisance appeals should go to jail if their appeal turns out to be an unfounded waste of time. This would drop the number of appeals to near zero... ;)
Click to expand...
That's just the most recent report. It's been LONG known that the #1 fear for criminals is an armed victim. It was a survey of thousands of convicts in prison. The same survey said that the criminals were NOT AT ALL afraid of the police OR prison.

Again... I'm not suggesting we don't have laws addressing crime. But I am suggesting that such laws DO NOT PREVENT crime... at all. Zero. Zilch. The criminal mind pays no heed to laws as some sort of "barrier." They have no regard for the legal risks. And those same laws do not prevent people like us here on the forum from committing crimes. Our own moral compasses do.

Criminals have a different "moral compass." In their minds, their crimes are not crimes. Rather they are simply self-serving actions that are justified in their minds, as they consider themselves a "victim" of society, and this is simply a coping mechanism. They don't give a flying fuck that it's illegal or comes with penalties and punishment.
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
That's just the most recent report. It's been LONG known that the #1 fear for criminals is an armed victim. It was a survey of thousands of convicts in prison. The same survey said that the criminals were NOT AT ALL afraid of the police OR prison.

Again... I'm not suggesting we don't have laws addressing crime. But I am suggesting that such laws DO NOT PREVENT crime... at all. Zero. Zilch. The criminal mind pays no heed to laws as some sort of "barrier." They have no regard for the legal risks. And those same laws do not prevent people like us here on the forum from committing crimes. Our own moral compasses do.
Click to expand...
1,000% true. Congress passed laws to make it harder/illegal for the average citizen to own a machine gun post 1986 manufacture date but yet we have millions of Glock switches on the streets owned by thugs who could care less what the law says because they are drug dealers/criminals/felons. As stated earlier, murder carries the highest punishment of any crime, yet it happens all day every day. Laws do not work on bad people but, like Racer said, armed citizens do. To many left leaners, they were shocked to see crime fall in states when constitutional carry was enacted.
 
Racer88 said:
That's just the most recent report. It's been LONG known that the #1 fear for criminals is an armed victim. It was a survey of thousands of convicts in prison. The same survey said that the criminals were NOT AT ALL afraid of the police OR prison.

Again... I'm not suggesting we don't have laws addressing crime. But I am suggesting that such laws DO NOT PREVENT crime... at all. Zero. Zilch. The criminal mind pays no heed to laws as some sort of "barrier." They have no regard for the legal risks. And those same laws do not prevent people like us here on the forum from committing crimes. Our own moral compasses do.

Criminals have a different "moral compass." In their minds, their crimes are not crimes. Rather they are simply self-serving actions that are justified in their minds, as they consider themselves a "victim" of society, and this is simply a coping mechanism. They don't give a flying fuck that it's illegal or comes with penalties and punishment.
Click to expand...
I have no training in psychology but attended lectures and seminars led by criminal profilers. There is a theory among psychologists and psychiatrists that some criminals from an early age showed signs of not being able to process the concept of consequences. They dont even consider it. Because that part of their brain doesn't work. This is different from sociopathy, which in simple terms is to be self-absorbed and not have any empathy for others.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
. There is a theory among psychologists and psychiatrists that some criminals from an early age showed signs of not being able to process the concept of consequences. They dont even consider it. Because that part of their brain doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Bingo, Bongo! ;)

They don't give a fuck about the laws and related penalties. Of course, society needs that system of laws and penalizing those convicted of crimes. But it does not prevent any crime.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
There is a theory among psychologists and psychiatrists that some criminals from an early age showed signs of not being able to process the concept of consequences. They dont even consider it. Because that part of their brain doesn't work. This is different from sociopathy, which in simple terms is to be self-absorbed and not have any empathy for others.
Click to expand...

I've also read/listened to such theories. No amount of medicine, therapy or incarceration will fix this. Cull these people directly into the open pit, then bury. Same with sociopaths--goodbye, gone. Damaged goods is damaged goods.
 
Bobster said:
I've also read/listened to such theories. No amount of medicine, therapy or incarceration will fix this. Cull these people directly into the open pit, then bury. Same with sociopaths--goodbye, gone. Damaged goods is damaged goods.
Click to expand...
The days are gone when men did dangerous industrial work, lived on the frontier, or were fighting with spears and swords. Natural selection took care of those who had poor judgement. A lot of the crazies we see on the news these days would have been accused of being witches by the townspeople and burned at the stake.

Good times. :)
 
I've read a couple click-bait "theories" (didn't watch) that when/if NFA tax (only) on cans goes away, the opportunity for Dumpos to re-instate a much higher tax at a later date will be a real possibility. What do you'all think? :unsure:
 
Bobster said:
I've read a couple click-bait "theories" (didn't watch) that when/if NFA tax (only) on cans goes away, the opportunity for Dumpos to re-instate a much higher tax at a later date will be a real possibility. What do you'all think? :unsure:
Click to expand...
I dont think anybody cares about the tax. Even Uncle Sam. It costs the government more to process the application than the $200 they collect.

Personally, I dont care about registration... whatever that comes to mean if this makes it into law. I presume it will be more like a NICS check and filling out a 4473 than registration - but that's just an assumption. SBRs.... as I have said many times the law is utterly obsolete. SBR doesnt mean anything anymore. That category was defined before subguns, PCCs, shorty shotguns, and rifle caliber pistols became common.
 
Bobster said:
I've read a couple click-bait "theories" (didn't watch) that when/if NFA tax (only) on cans goes away, the opportunity for Dumpos to re-instate a much higher tax at a later date will be a real possibility. What do you'all think? :unsure:
Click to expand...
With any change of managing power, it can all be taken away in an instant. The SCOTUS is the last check and balance but with justices voting for a political stance vs the Constitutionality of law is scary.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
I dont think anybody cares about the tax. Even Uncle Sam. It costs the government more to process the application than the $200 they collect.

Personally, I dont care about registration... whatever that comes to mean if this makes it into law. I presume it will be more like a NICS check and filling out a 4473 than registration - but that's just an assumption. SBRs.... as I have said many times the law is utterly obsolete. SBR doesnt mean anything anymore. That category was defined before subguns, PCCs, shorty shotguns, and rifle caliber pistols became common.
Click to expand...

I agree, but if it still means registration (even without any cost), I'm out. No interest.
 
BREAKING: Rep. Andrew Clyde just introduced an amendment to the Senate-passed budget reconciliation bill to remove the NFA registration requirement for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

Call your Rep and DEMAND they support the Clyde Amendment!

No half measures! Gut the NFA!

General switchboard: (202) 224-3121
House Speaker Mike Johnson: (202) 225-2777
 

Attachments

  • 1000006122.jpg
    1000006122.jpg
    366.6 KB · Views: 42
Racer88 said:
Big whoop. So, in terms of what we care about... no change at all. Still gotta go through the hoops and register.

GIF by Zack Kantor
Click to expand...
No, it's removing them from the NFA altogether. No registration, at least no registration as it is now. I believe that the background check and 4473 is a form of registration and an infringement, but it shouldn't be any more difficult or time consuming than buying any other firearm.

I'm not really banking on it making it all the way through, but there is a lot of 2A support in the House. Far more than in the Senate, so the house might make it stick.
 
Back
Top