Repeal the NFA, good idea?

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

Finally! Republican Senate Candidate Goes On Offensive: Calls For Legalizing Machine Guns & Repealing National Firearms Act

Didn't even read this yet but sounds like we need more people like this fella.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Who's he running against?

Don't get me wrong I am generally for this platform but this kinda reeks of attention whore/monetizing some click bait.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

Who's he running against?

Don't get me wrong I am generally for this platform but this kinda reeks of attention whore/monetizing some click bait.

No idea, he's running in Missouri and I didn't bother to look into it further.

 

[ProgSpear]

The article actually has some excellent historical information.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

The article actually has some excellent historical information.

I thought so to. Interesting how the left hates nazis but their policies are similar to the Nazi parties' policies.

 

[Celt]

I love it, after all it is the intent of the Second Amendment to be equally armed to a soldier. We need to be on the offensive, as we are constantly on the defensive and constantly giving up ground. I'm tired of it.

 

[freddy]

Need shirts and bumper stickers:

REPEAL THE NFA!

REPEAL THE HUGHES AMENDMENT!​

 

[Airborneguy]

He’s absolutely right. Even if it goes no where, we need to reframe the argument. The left has no problem going all the way left on guns. It is time we go all the way right.

The 2nd Amendment means NO guns laws. That’s the negotiating point we start from. End of story.

Start there, and we can talk punishment for those who use guns to commit crimes, that would fall within the boundaries of the 2nd. But laws that only address gun ownership?

No.

 

[freddy]

He’s absolutely right. Even if it goes no where, we need to reframe the argument. The left has no problem going all the way left on guns. It is time we go all the way right.

The 2nd Amendment means NO guns laws. That’s the negotiating point we start from. End of story.

Start there, and we can talk punishment for those who use guns to commit crimes, that would fall within the boundaries of the 2nd. But laws that only address gun ownership?

No.

100%

 

[Darth]

He’s absolutely right. Even if it goes no where, we need to reframe the argument. The left has no problem going all the way left on guns. It is time we go all the way right.

The 2nd Amendment means NO guns laws. That’s the negotiating point we start from. End of story.

Start there, and we can talk punishment for those who use guns to commit crimes, that would fall within the boundaries of the 2nd. But laws that only address gun ownership?

No.

Punish those that commit crimes while using them, instead of just possessing them!?

And this is from a guy that is against the decriminalization of drugs?

At least you seem to be starting to come around.

 

[Uzi]

I don't like the idea that to many, repealing the ATF is some huge leap of boundaries for supporters of the 2A community on account for it being simply unconstitutional. People get so molded into compliance that they start to accept more of it overtime. Wake up, it never was okay and shouldn't be tolerated. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Airborneguy]

Punish those that commit crimes while using them, instead of just possessing them!?

And this is from a guy that is against the decriminalization of drugs?

At least you seem to be starting to come around.

Gun culture does not inherently cause crime. They’re not the same concept. One can own 50, 100, 300+ guns and still be a contributor to society. Hell anyone who can afford even 50 guns almost definitely is successful. Drugs, not so much. The vast majority of drug users are worthless scum who negatively affect all those around them.

 

[Darth]

I don't like the idea that to many, repealing the ATF is some huge leap of boundaries for supporters of the 2A community on account for it being simply unconstitutional. People get so molded into compliance that they start to accept more of it overtime. Wake up, it never was okay and shouldn't be tolerated. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The people that, with pretend exasperation, say "So you think people should be allowed to have tanks and NUKES too!?!?!?!? HMMMMMMMMMM!?!?!?!?"



Yes, yes I do.

Do you honestly think the thing keeping genocidal maniacs from getting nukes right now is a law? I personally don't. I don't see how, if you plan on committing a mass genocide, a law saying "it's SUPER ILLEGAL" is preventing that.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

Here's the thing I always find interesting about this whole thing. We don't want our rights infringed upon. They think that if we have our rights we're just going to kill them.

When in reality and many times throughout history we see that those who want to infringe upon the rights of the people are more often than not the ones who will kill and harm others.

It's just a shame all the corruption and money buying people to do what someone else wants instead of what the people actually want.

We the people have failed our obligations to our government. We were supposed to keep it in check and not allow it to become "big government" just like we shouldn't have allowed these huge corporations to control us either.

Now that we're in the position we are, the only way to fix it is to slowly gut and rebuild the government through elections and throwing people in jail for crimes committed. Or we will be forced to take physical action to maintain our rights. Neither will be easy and the latter will result in innocent death and destruction.

From what I've seen personally of the indoctrination going on many people are too far gone to ever have a change of opinion. They are trained to ignore all facts and evidence that they are incorrect and just use language to shut down whoever they are talking to. Instead of having their own logic and facts to use.

 

[Darth]

Gun culture does not inherently cause crime. They’re not the same concept. One can own 50, 100, 300+ guns and still be a contributor to society. Hell anyone who can afford even 50 guns almost definitely is successful. Drugs, not so much. The vast majority of drug users are worthless scum who negatively affect all those around them.

You know that's a lie, for one, and for two, when in the world does "being a contributor to society (the greater good)" have anything to do with our laws?

The guy that pioneered the 2nd (?) largest company in the WORLD today was a huge pot smoker.

 

[Airborneguy]

Pot isn’t a drug, they just call it one.

The odds of being a productive member of society when using heroin (even once), opiates casually, cocaine often, crack or meth (even once), are astronomically low.

And yes, laws exist to protect the law abiding from pieces of shit. That’s literally the only moral reason for having laws at all.

 

[Darth]

Pot isn’t a drug, they just call it one.

The odds of being a productive member of society when using heroin (even once), opiates casually, cocaine often, crack or meth (even once), are astronomically low.

And yes, laws exist to protect the law abiding from pieces of shit. That’s literally the only moral reason for having laws at all.

Well, no. Clearly the laws we currently have protect people from themselves, which is completely immoral.

No idea where you're getting your definition of drug from, but pot is absolutely one, as is alcohol and caffeine.

And, maybe you are unaware, but the amount of super rich entrepreneurs that use opiates and coke is well, it isn't one or two. But that's irrelevant as "being a citizen for the greater good" is more along the lines of communism, not us here in the US.

You have an indefensible position is all, but that is nothing new.

 

[Airborneguy]

My eyes, which have seen far too many piece of shit drug addicts to count. We should euthanize the lot of them.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

I say possession of items shouldn't really be illegal, now if you use those items to harm someone criminally then you have to deal with the consequences of your crime.

Now I agree drugs can ruin families and the users lives however it'd be easier for them to sort it all out without having to deal with criminal charges and the person's addiction.

It's the same kind of idea with firearms we should be able to own them all we want but as soon as we use them to harm someone we're in a world of shit.

Prohibition causes more crime than it stops. Doesn't matter if it's prohibition of alcohol, drugs or firearms crime will go up always after something is prohibited.

 

[Darth]

My eyes, which have seen far too many piece of shit drug addicts to count. We should euthanize the lot of them.

Yeah, you must be like the only person to have seen drug addicts on a daily basis.

To be fair, I wouldn't have a job without them, literally, so I should be voting for your mindset. But I have morals.

 

[Burzum]

Gun culture does not inherently cause crime. They’re not the same concept. One can own 50, 100, 300+ guns and still be a contributor to society. Hell anyone who can afford even 50 guns almost definitely is successful. Drugs, not so much. The vast majority of drug users are worthless scum who negatively affect all those around them.

I hate how weakened people abuse themselves with drugs, but prohibition does not work it only empowers criminals to prey on the 5%-10% of the population trapped in chemical addiction; addicts will always find a way and all prohibition does is make middle-men rich.

 

[Airborneguy]

Yeah, you must be like the only person to have seen drug addicts on a daily basis.

I’ve said nothing of the sort, although I’ve definitely seen more than you.

 

[Airborneguy]

I hate how weakened people abuse themselves with drugs, but prohibition does not work it only empowers criminals to prey on the 5%-10% of the population trapped in chemical addiction; addicts will always find a way and all prohibition does is make middle-men rich.

Ok. What would legalization accomplish? This is the question that never gets answered. Drugs cause too many problems... so legalize them? Makes no sense.

 

[Darth]

I’ve said nothing of the sort, although I’ve definitely seen more than you.

An amount that might skew your view of reasonably reality?

Like an amount an anti-gunner might have seen after they scraped their kids off the walls of Sandy Hook?

 

[Darth]

Ok. What would legalization accomplish? This is the question that never gets answered. Drugs cause too many problems... so legalize them? Makes no sense.

Not sure there is any "accomplishing" about it, but if it were such a question, it would cause state taxpayer payments to the prison and law enforcement systems to plummet, it would ruin millions less lives, and it would even expand medicinal progress without the absurd "controlled substances" restrictions that exist within the FDA.

 

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

Ok. What would legalization accomplish? This is the question that never gets answered. Drugs cause too many problems... so legalize them? Makes no sense.

It takes the burden of dealing with the non violent addicts from the police and moves it to the doctors and emts. Instead of throwing addicts in jail they can send them to rehab without them having to worry about criminal charges.

The difference is now the black market is going to shrink as people can go their pharmacy and get these things otc or through a prescription depending on the drug. Now if you make it all available otc just by asking for it the black market would shrink more.

Now we're still going to have violent addicts and dealers but they will be far and fewer between. Plus the jail systems would be less overcrowded.


At the end of the day people are going to do what they want regardless of the legality. Less people telling us what we can and can't do will only be better for us.

Now I'm not saying get rid of all laws but there's a lot that are very unnecessary in the same way that gun laws are unnecessary.

 

[ProgSpear]

The OP was about repealing the NFA, since like Prohibition, the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty" and every other progressive wet dream, it's an absolute failure. Bluntly, when the progressives win the "War on White People Who Own Guns", the black market on guns is going to resemble something that would makes some warlords in Peshawar blush.

 

[Burzum]

Ok. What would legalization accomplish? This is the question that never gets answered. Drugs cause too many problems... so legalize them? Makes no sense.

First, I respect your view, so do not think I am being hostile, but the drug itself (like "the gun") is not the issue it is the person who chooses or is genetically predisposed to become addicted, peel back the curtain and get a handle on the depth of the problem for society.

Having marijuana a Schedule 1 drug is retarded and incorrect as to the medical role, refined sugar actually fits the definition of a Schedule 1 drug better than marijuana (mind you, I do not, nor ever have, ingested/smoked weed).

Tobacco will kill over 500,000 Americans annually and yet still be subsidized by tax payers to grow, obesity may well be overtaking tobacco deaths and yet our buddy, refined sugar, is still able to be purchased by kids old enough to stumble into a corner store--(not that I believe in banning sugar either) so there is some serious insanity going on, you ask "what would it accomplish," I say it cannot get much worse.

 

[Burzum]

Not sure there is any "accomplishing" about it, but if it were such a question, it would cause state taxpayer payments to the prison and law enforcement systems to plummet, it would ruin millions less lives, and it would even expand medicinal progress without the absurd "controlled substances" restrictions that exist within the FDA.

Darth, an excellent point.

 

[96coal449]

definition of drug from, but pot is absolutely one,

I was sure drugs are manufactured.

Cannabis is definitely an herb.
And not only did TJ smoke it, he made a fortune growing it up and down the coast. On his plantations and with slave labor. Ohh the irony.