“But until the courts step up and say the second amendment means something, we’re stuck playing this underhanded game.”

Hate to say it, but even then we wouldn’t be able to take on the Hughes amendment. Since it isn’t really a ban you can’t really use the Second Amendment as an arguement. Hughes amendment isn’t the only thing I want to see gone that would be fine first steps. I want to see the 89 import ban, the import ban within the GCA’68, and a few other parts gone.

As for the arguments on NRA supporting the GCA’68 and the FOPA’86. The NRA and other pro-gun groups did support parts of the GCA. I’ve got a stack of Guns and Ammo magazines from 61 to 69. They did support the FOPA because it had stuff that covered exactly what part of it is called; ‘firearm owner’s protection’. Even though the Hughes Amend. was a low blow there’s no sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

It’s very difficult to get rid of legislation once it’s on the books.

Attempting to reason with you is incredible because you don’t like to address the things people say and you avoid everything that supports my very CLEAR central point.

If you think the hughes amendment should be targeted first, then fine, whatever. Are you going to even ADDRESS my point which is that the nra helped make the 1986 ban into law?! NRA could have stopped the so called “firearm owners protection act” when that amendment was added in 1986 and you know it. NRA has a long history of ignoring or encouraging attacks on the 2nd amendment as it pertains to FULL AUTO OWNERS (or wannabe owners).

Tell me what nra has done to help get rid of the 1986 ban that it helped pass? You know the answer as well as I do: nra has done NOTHING to get rid of it.

I did look at your graphic, and to tell the truth, I don’t really give a shit. It happened 6 years before I was born and was a statement of a president who was dead four years before I was born.

Truth be told, if I’m lobbying for repealing the 1986 Hughes Amendment, I’m also going to say I support the NFA. Because if I say “I demand you repeal the Hughes Amendment and the NFA” the politicians are going to laugh me out of the room. It’s a common tactic in politics to stand on a previous law in order to avoid more onerous regulation.

Yes, this was not supposed to happen. The second amendment was meant to put gun rights outside of the political realm, where we wouldn’t have to play horse trading games with our rights. But until the courts step up and say the second amendment means something, we’re stuck playing this underhanded game. And so, yes, until I can get rid of the 1986 ban, the NFA is not a priority for me, and it its existence makes politicians comfortable with the idea of repealing the outright ban, I’m OK with going for that.

Hopefully they won’t read this, or I’ll be in big trouble for spilling the beans.

Clearly you refuse to deal with the evidence and facts concerning nra’s past support for major gun control bills. You even admit that you don’t know whether they did or not. You like to mischaracterize what I say. You lie about what I’m saying (you claim I’m faulting nra for “failing to stop ____, when in fact I’m exposing their very clear SUPPORT for gun control in 1934 and 1968 http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/bigmackdaddyboy/nraadmitsin1968thatitsupportsgunban.jpg unless you ignore what the nra presidents said). It’s pretty hard to reason with people who behave that way you do so I’ll see ya later.

One of the reasons that lawmen of the time preferred the BAR over the Thompson is because the BAR’s 30-06 rounds would punch through a car like a hot knife through butter, whereas the .45s had a difficult time penetrating a moving vehicle.

I’m wondering if any states or localities had tried to restrict machine guns before ’34. (I know NYC had started restricting handguns by that time.)