Let me rephrase in a way that I’ll stand by. If you are too stupid to fill out a form 4 correctly, you shouldn’t own a firearm. Those that say the form is too hard to fill out are exactly the retards that should be rejected. Is that you? I’ve read some posts, so I have suspicions.
House Budget Proposal to remove Tax on Suppressors but not remove it from the NFA
- Thread starter stefan73
- Start date
A form 4 is infringement.
Those who say someone should be able to fill out a form, pass a test, shoot a bullseye, etc. support infringement.
Is that you Gabby?
They don’t think illiteracy be like it is, but it do.
I’m not arguing that the form should exist. I’m saying “I’m too stupid to fill it out correctly” is a shitty retort. I’m passing judgement on those too stupid to fill out a form, not on the existence of the form.
See "pass a test" above, the inability to read and/or write should not be grounds for denial of the right to keep and bear arms.
Infringement. Gabby.
I do not want to derail the thread, but it is 11 states, not just Oregon.
Here are the states.
Montana was pulled out of the bill after one of its Senators objected.
Montana was pulled out of the bill after one of its Senators objected.
Americans should be forced to shoot bullseyes and otherwise train with rifles from an early age, whether they like guns or not. At least the males should.
Then they should be forced to go through basic training and keep a functioning rifle with select fire from age 17 or 18 to at least 45 and show up for drill with it periodically and prove it is functional, well cared for, and its owner is competent in its use.
Just my two cents, and I think the Founders would have agreed with me.
Enforced proficiency is an infringement.
An infringement of what, exactly?
Early Americans were required both in the colonies and the early Republic, to show up with working firearms, powder, and ammunition, and to train. Period.
This is entirely consistent with why the Second Amendment was written.
Here is the guy who is considered the author -
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
Madison believed in a trained militia. Training is for producing proficiency.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790. The militia act was passed soon after (two years later) by Congress enrolling all males between certain ages in the militia and requiring that they arm themselves with certain weapons and a sufficient amount of ammunition, as well as some other gear. Washington signed it into law.
Are you aware of any of this history? Are you aware that there were penalties associated with failure?
Last edited:
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
Again, the object was competency through familiarity from infancy.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
Again, the object was competency through familiarity from infancy.
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
Again.
The Founders thought there should be enforced training and drill and familiarity, and they made laws to force Americans to equip themselves and train.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
Again.
The Founders thought there should be enforced training and drill and familiarity, and they made laws to force Americans to equip themselves and train.
Final text released from Senate Finance Committee.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/finance_committee_legislative_text_title_vii.pdf
See pages 261-263.
Only machine guns and destructive devices would remain NFA items, and it makes a very good attempt at fixing state law problems in states that require NFA registration for such items (e.g., Georgia). I would still feel more comfortable with a state law statutory change, but take a look at it and share your thoughts.
So basically it takes this:
26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
www.law.cornell.edu
(a)Firearm
The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun;(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than amachinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
and turns it into this:
(a)Firearm
The term "firearm" means a machinegun or a destructive device.
There is a little more to it (see link to the text of the bill above), but that is the basic gist of it.
Let's hope it passes the full Senate.
Back on topic
When will we know whether this survives the Byrd Rule? Is anybody familiar with when this determination is made?
Can the Senators vote on the Byrd Rule determination, or is the decision made by some bureaucrat staffers?
Si. And depending on how you define "mostly" it could be Alaska.
But he's on a roll so I'm not stopping him.
| State | Total Acreage |
| Alaska | 82,831,388 |
| Arizona | 14,423,967 |
| California | 16,682,607 |
| Colorado | 4,352,632 |
| Idaho | 21,685,823 |
| Nevada | 33,580,624 |
| New Mexico | 14,312,074 |
| Oregon | 21,745,380 |
| Utah | 18,746,709 |
| Washington | 5,371,690 |
| Wyoming | 14,940,234 |
| Total | 258,673,128 |
All that and yet the second amendment was written to codify that the right to own was God given. Whatever their thoughts/beliefs were on training were not part of the Constitution. Ask yourself why they didn't. Here's a good reason.... Because they knew that government is corrupt and giving any cracks would turn into the Grad Canyon. Look at what they have done to the 2A with it being written the way it was. I can't imagine how fucked we'd be if they had put anything close to what you suggested.
I get the 'run it out to the Nth degree of logic' - the form is an infringement if you can not read / write / use your mouth, toes, fingers to grasp a fuckin pen......
But let's talk about THAT infringement in light of the OBLIGATIONS thrust on the rest of the community. This isn't the world of 1770's.....this is a modern world, if a person can not read or write - they are a useless eater, fed and cared for by the labor others. In an earlier America - one who did not possess the basic skills and attributes to survive - didn't. RIF mutherfucker.
In practice people that would be 'infringed' are a BURDEN on the rest of us, and those folks sure as shit don't need a suppressor. They need to learn to become a more capable person, and that has NOTHING to do with firearms.
But let's talk about THAT infringement in light of the OBLIGATIONS thrust on the rest of the community. This isn't the world of 1770's.....this is a modern world, if a person can not read or write - they are a useless eater, fed and cared for by the labor others. In an earlier America - one who did not possess the basic skills and attributes to survive - didn't. RIF mutherfucker.
In practice people that would be 'infringed' are a BURDEN on the rest of us, and those folks sure as shit don't need a suppressor. They need to learn to become a more capable person, and that has NOTHING to do with firearms.
They might be dyslexic.
My grandparents couldn't read or write. And not in the 1770s.
I'm willing to bet quite a few people who served in past wars couldn't read or write.
My brother and my sister's granddaughter are dyslexic but somewhat mildly so they get by.
I was surrounded by people who couldn't read or write growing up.
Nobody said the militia law was a part of the constitution, and yet the militia requirements and training pre-existed the constitution as well, remained after the Second Amendment was adopted, and were supported and passed into law by the same folks who adopted the Second Amendment.
The Militia Act was passed only months after the Second Amendment was ratified, but militia requirements had existed earlier, even under English rule.
I have no reason to think that requiring American citizens to become familiar with firearms and serve in the militia would result in "how fucked we'd be." This is what the Founders wanted, and it is part of the reason that they wrote the Second Amendment.
The federal government still requires males from 17 to 45 to be in the unorganized militia, but it dropped the equipment requirements, and local governments no longer organize militia generally. Americans wanted the right, but not the duties. It simply fell into disuse over time.
Then the federal government, in the twentieth century, created the National Guard.
Last edited:
The Guard is NOT the militia. Totally separate entities not the same. Ever.
So, it follows that the Guard did not replace the state militias.
So, it follows that the Guard did not replace the state militias.
Both federal law and state law state that it is the organized militia.
Both federal law and state law state that those not in the national guard are the unorganized militia, if 17-45 years of age and male.
And this is not a better state of affairs than what the Founders intended, which was all citizens enrolled, actually equipped, and serving in the militia with regular training and inspections, ready.
If anybody knows about the procedure of the Byrd Rule, please educate the rest of us.
I don't read it that way. I read it as an unorganized militia separate from the a well regulated militia.
But I'm not sure many of them were actually in love with the idea of a standing army.
Any Senator can raise a point of order with respect to, for example, removing silencers, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns from the National Firearms Act, and then I think this is the person who gets to decide.
We're cooked.
We're cooked.
I thought you knew about it. I've only heard of if before but have never tried to understand it.
True.
However, since there was no National Guard before the Militia Act of 1903, that's not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment.
There was no organized militia in 1791, so an interpretation that the Guard is the militia protected by the 2A runs afoul of Bruen, don't you think?
I'm not asserting that you are arguing that. I'm asking for your interpretation.
However, since there was no National Guard before the Militia Act of 1903, that's not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment.
There was no organized militia in 1791, so an interpretation that the Guard is the militia protected by the 2A runs afoul of Bruen, don't you think?
I'm not asserting that you are arguing that. I'm asking for your interpretation.
Sorta. Depends on if you believe the National Guard when they say December 13th 1636 is the birthday of the National Guard.
Organized militias existed and trained on a regular basis in the 1600s.
I am not claiming that the National Guard is the militia referred to in the Second Amendment.
I am obviously communicating my point very poorly.
Sigh.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves due to neglect of the militia system, which forced all males starting at 16 - 18 (depending upon when is the period under discussion) to arm themselves properly for war and to train for war as a group. This was enforced by law with penalties. Americans did not like it, and over time they stopped enforcing it, and over time folks stopped volunteering when it was no longer forced. And then we ended up with the National Guard.
I think the Founders would be disgusted by that result, and somehow you (and apparently others) took my point to be that the National Guard is the militia referred to in the Second Amendment.
No, sir.
The Founders viewed the militia as the whole body of the people, at least the males, at the appropriate ages, unless they were exempt. Hopefully my point is clearer this time so I can stop dragging this thread about a very important matter in the Senate currently, off topic.
This bill in the Senate may be the most important federal firearms legislation since 1986, which was 39 years ago.
Don’t forget the selective service. If men can be drafted and forced to carry arms in combat then it ought to be incumbent upon them to be “well regulated “ in the use of those arms before they are ever drafted.
Enforced proficiency is not an infringement anymore than enforced taxes or enforced registration for the draft.
Blah blah blah blah and a bunch of words to say that you believe in restrictions on the 2A.
Currently if you and some friends actually get together and train there's a high probability that you are being watched by the government and considered a detriment to them.
Who gets to make up the rules for your suggested requirements? The government? What do we do with the people that don't meet the governments standards for militia training? Should they not also have the rights to defend themselves?
Something tells me that you really haven't thought through your position.
Or have a match they try to send folks to or out of the blue invite you to one you've never heard of, that is designed from the gate to test ability's, tactics, your gear, ect.
I always shoot and act like I don't know what I'm doing. It's a diabolical plan.
Maybe I am not communicating so well, or maybe you decided you disagree without really giving a careful read to what I have been writing. I do not know which, but since I do not "believe in restrictions on the 2A," as you wrote, I just have to ask, what makes you think that? What did I write that causes you to believe that I believe in restrictions on the Second Amendment, and what, specifically, are those restrictions?
For example, do you think I believe that you have to be trained to buy a gun? Or to own a gun? Or to carry a gun? If so, could you point out what I wrote that gives you that impression? If it is something else, please explain.
I feel like you and I are talking past each other or having two different conversations.
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
Just as the Founders intended, yes.
More training, or fines and jail if it is just recalcitrance by lefties who do not like guns or war or the current sitting president. Switzerland does it by increased taxes on those who do not go to basic training until they do. They can put it off, but their taxes go up, and they stay up year by year until they complete their training and go home with a SIG550 machine gun.
What did I write that causes you even to ask this question?
Something tells me you do not even know what my position is. I did not think I was hiding it.
From what I gather, the Byrd rule says that a simple majority is all that is needed to advance or kill reconciliation bills which only deal with taxation/spending. A 2/3 majority is not needed like it is with laws or regulations that aren't dealing with revenue/spending.
Since the NFA items are taxed $200 for each item, they are a tax related issue That's why they are being included in the reconciliation bill. Only a simple majority swinging our way is needed to remove them from the NFA.
3/5's ... 60+ votes
I think HPA and SHORT are already in there so some random senator raising a point of order to strike the provision is how it gets started.
The Byrd Rule - Political Dictionary
The Byrd rule is a parliamentary tripwire that prevents tangential material from being included in a budget reconciliation bill in the Senate. Reconciliation legislation is …
politicaldictionary.com
I think I kinda do understand now. Probably a loss of meaning in the written and reading communication.
So I will just ask. With the founding fathers knowing that 10% or less of the population was actively involved in or even wanted to kick the King and his men to the curb do you think that they believed the militia ideal was legit? They were actively overthrowing a government because of taxation. To install a new type of government that threatened to tax or imprison the population for not participating in it doesn't sound like a great idea. Especially since they were in a minority of 9 to 1 or worse.
It's a given that taxation was not the sole reason for the coup.
I think your 10% figure is way off. Current estimates by historians are that loyalists may have been as few as 15-20%, with a majority supporting revolution and independence, and some number being neutral. Of course, real numbers are hard to come by, but loyalist militia were rare and occurred only in Loyalist hot spots, like New York, and even then numbered only in the hundreds.
Anyway, there is lots and lots of writing about the militia and fear of a standing military, and most of it is before the Second Amendment, which was not even proposed until 1789 and ratified in 1791.
The Federalist Papers were written before the Bill of Rights, arguing for the adoption of the Constitution (which had no Bill of Rights at this time). Publius was the pen name of James Madison.
From the end of Federalist 46, in which Madison is arguing against the notion that a federal government under the proposed constitution could simply take over and snuff out the state governments:
THE REST IS THE QUOTE AND NOT MY WRITING
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.
PUBLIUS.
Last edited:
