Should the 1934 NFA and the Hughes Amendment to the NFA be repealed

[Jerry]

Notice Haymarket is ignoring my posts. Turtle, be sure to put that in the Haymarket Flowchart.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here is where I see it. Willful harm to another in commission of a crime, execution, rob a store and show indifference towards an innocent life, plan a murder, etc. regardless of a weapon and your right to life is forfeit. Accidents because of indifference should carry some weight, but not that of capitol offense, it should hurt though, five plus years hard labor.

I'm good with capital punishment for any crime which involves a deliberate intent or an indifferent willingness to kill an innocent.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'm good with capital punishment for any crime which involves a deliberate intent or an indifferent willingness to kill an innocent.

It all falls to intent IMO. Those who could willingly kill for gain or other reasons without some form of defensive intent without remorse should be kept out of society minimum and ideally dealt with on a permanent basis. Those who are criminally negligent aren't the same type of dangerous, but they should have a punishment that serves as a deterrent to their future negligence and hopefully serves as an example to others to pay attention.

 

[American]

Then why do we have speeding laws or any kind of law for that matter?

I'm sure this argument would fit a fallacy category, I just don't know the name. So either have the ban or why not have total lawlessness? Awesome logic. :roll:

 

[American]

Notice Haymarket is ignoring my posts. Turtle, be sure to put that in the Haymarket Flowchart.

He can't see logic.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I'm sure this argument would fit a fallacy category, I just don't know the name. So either have the ban or why not have total lawlessness? Awesome logic. :roll:

No, I was pointing out the flawed logic in this statement, "Your assumptions are based on the false premise that every citizen is irresponsible, it's dangerous to make laws or suggest laws with that mindset in place."

Many laws are based on the assumption citizens can be irresponsible.

 

[Jerry]

http://star-firearms.com/firearms/guns/smgD/

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It all falls to intent IMO. Those who could willingly kill for gain or other reasons without some form of defensive intent without remorse should be kept out of society minimum and ideally dealt with on a permanent basis. Those who are criminally negligent aren't the same type of dangerous, but they should have a punishment that serves as a deterrent to their future negligence and hopefully serves as an example to others to pay attention.

I think there's a point where “criminally negligent” is close enough to willful intent to be treated the same. Consider someone taking a high-powered rifle, and firing a random shot at a building that he knows is occupied. Such an act couldn't really be construed as a deliberate intent to kill someone, but knowing that such an act could easily result in the death of an innocent, I think it would be fair to say that it demonstrates an indifference to human life which is no better than willful intent to kill.

 

[Crimefree]

I think there's a point where “criminally negligent” is close enough to willful intent to be treated the same. Consider someone taking a high-powered rifle, and firing a random shot at a building that he knows is occupied. Such an act couldn't really be construed as a deliberate intent to kill someone, but knowing that such an act could easily result in the death of an innocent, I think it would be fair to say that it demonstrates an indifference to human life which is no better than willful intent to kill.

I tried real hard on this one but I got stuck when I tried a few comparisons. once I got out of the gun groove and the lie of gun control that guns are responsible it became clear.

Consider a person takes takes a few Kgs of explosive, 20 gal of petrol, a sword, a rifle..... are these all not the same in that we have no way of knowing what anyone is going to do. Nor do we have any known test to determine what they will do in the future.

Yet here we have raving lunatics screeching and screaming we must test, deny, lock up and if they had their way kill all who possibly might buy a gun.

These people want to be taken seriously but to do that one has to be willing to listen to reason. Raving lunatics on the other hand are impervious to reason.

Maybe we need to stop the witch burners before they poison the minds of others with their paranoia and unjustified fear.

It is a dangerous world out there and facing this dangerous world without adequate means of defence for anyone is not helping them it is punishment and condemning them to be VICTIMS without one shred of justification. Glibly they speak of deprivation like their intended victims were dogs that needed to be caught and locked up or tied to a fence post.

I think the time is coming to toss these lunatics out in the cold and let the public know how they have been duped by the lies and fear they spread like some contagious disease.

We know how to deal with criminals and if we are to survive a scourge worse than crime, we need to deal with gun control, its laws and promoters who demonstrate an indifference to peoples suffering, injury or even death in order to stamp their fears, cowardice or agenda on others.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I think there's a point where “criminally negligent” is close enough to willful intent to be treated the same. Consider someone taking a high-powered rifle, and firing a random shot at a building that he knows is occupied. Such an act couldn't really be construed as a deliberate intent to kill someone, but knowing that such an act could easily result in the death of an innocent, I think it would be fair to say that it demonstrates an indifference to human life which is no better than willful intent to kill.

I would agree with that. Doing something as described knowing full well the possibility of permanent harm is likely should be treated as pre-meditated.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

The National registration and fees that were in place before the 1986 ban deterred the amount that is in circulation. I believe the ban would ensure the circulation of them would remain low but with stricter regulation.

So you want to ban the means of which the means of exercising a right?

 

[Crimefree]

No, I was pointing out the flawed logic in this statement, "Your assumptions are based on the false premise that every citizen is irresponsible, it's dangerous to make laws or suggest laws with that mindset in place."

Many laws are based on the assumption citizens can be irresponsible.

Citizens in some 200 years of firearm ownership have not proven to be irresponsible. Nor has anyone shown this useless law has made the slightest difference. For what possible reason should it be kept?