Urban Ag said:

---

If we're being honest and as much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's EO banning new full autos post 87 (may have been 86) was much worse than Trump banning bump stocks. Probably my single biggest critique of his entire presidency and I consider him the GOAT of at least the 1960's to the present. In fact, in the wake of the Vegas shooting I thought the bump stock ban was kind of political genius because no one really gave a sh**, they're pretty much worthless, and it helped shut up the anti-gun left (and right) at least for a little while.

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

It wasn't actually an EO. It was part of the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Some Dildo Democrat stuck it in as an amendment during a committee hearing and the Dems refused to pass the bill without the Hughes Amendment. Reagan ultimately signed it because the NRA advised him the act was important to protect gun rights, which is partly true. What wasn't true was that the NRA told him the MG ban would be overturned by the court's in short order. That didn't happen and the NRA hasn't lifted a finger to make it so.

That is my number one wish list item to be overturned. If you could at least buy a new MG under the NFA rules, it would make them a lot more accessible to law abiding citizens that aren't wealthy.

Even the NFA getting completely overturned it wouldn't necessarily end the ban and new machine gun sales for civilians. At least you can buy suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs for reasonable prices, even if the process is complete unconstitutional BS.

Both should be overturned immediately, but if I had my choice it would be the '86 ban.

Okay man. I still don't know why you're ranting about Trump when the ATF is Gay shirt has literally NOTHING to do with him but I hope you have a great evening…

EskimoJoe said:

---

---

Oh damn, I spit out my water.

Thanks man. I stand corrected and that makes me feel a little better about it.

BigRobSA said:

---

EskimoJoe said:

---

---

Oh damn, I spit out my water.

---

the lol part is you can tell everyone wants to star that post but isn't really sure they want to star that post

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Breggy Popup said:

---

Yesterday said:

---

One thing Trump did that was a total disgrace!

---

That was bumpstocks. That is getting shot down as well.

---

Trump set the precedent the ATF used for this. He's a weak little NY anti-gun liberal, and people refuse to hold him accountable for it.

His crappy SC picks aren't guaranteed to back the lower courts either.

---

Then why did the Federalist Society put them on the list they gave to Trump?

Urban Ag said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

EskimoJoe said:

---

---

Oh damn, I spit out my water.

---

the lol part is you can tell everyone wants to star that post but isn't really sure they want to star that post

---

Star the post. We can have each other's backs in the gulag.

Urban Ag said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

EskimoJoe said:

---

---

Oh damn, I spit out my water.

---

the lol part is you can tell everyone wants to star that post but isn't really sure they want to star that post

---

I'm afraid I can't star your posted either.

Breggy Popup said:

---

Yesterday said:

---

One thing Trump did that was a total disgrace!

---

That was bumpstocks. That is getting shot down as well.

---

You're correct! My bad.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

"Take the guns first, worry about due process later"

A promise to sign any assault weapons ban that hit his desk.

Issuing an unconstitutional executive order that set the current slew of rules changes and reversals in effect( the bump stock ban is what got all this rolling....sorry)

His previous writings on guns. His statements about the need for GC.... the man is anti-gun. Sorry, not sorry.

---

You must REALLY hate Biden then.

Urban Ag said:

---

If we're being honest and as much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's EO banning new full autos post 87 (may have been 86) was much worse than Trump banning bump stocks. Probably my single biggest critique of his entire presidency and I consider him the GOAT of at least the 1960's to the present. In fact, in the wake of the Vegas shooting I thought the bump stock ban was kind of political genius because no one really gave a sh**, they're pretty much worthless, and it helped shut up the anti-gun left (and right) at least for a little while.

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

That was the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

A bit different than an XO. It somehow controversially passed on an uncounted oral vote.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Okay man. I still don't know why you're ranting about Trump when the ATF is Gay shirt has literally NOTHING to do with him but I hope you have a great evening…

---

Because TDS has irrepairably damaged a whole lot of people unfortunately.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

If we're being honest and as much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's EO banning new full autos post 87 (may have been 86) was much worse than Trump banning bump stocks. Probably my single biggest critique of his entire presidency and I consider him the GOAT of at least the 1960's to the present. In fact, in the wake of the Vegas shooting I thought the bump stock ban was kind of political genius because no one really gave a sh**, they're pretty much worthless, and it helped shut up the anti-gun left (and right) at least for a little while.

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

It wasn't actually an EO. It was part of the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Some Dildo Democrat stuck it in as an amendment during a committee hearing and the Dems refused to pass the bill without the Hughes Amendment. Reagan ultimately signed it because the NRA advised him the act was important to protect gun rights, which is partly true. What wasn't true was that the NRA told him the MG ban would be overturned by the court's in short order. That didn't happen and the NRA hasn't lifted a finger to make it so.

That is my number one wish list item to be overturned. If you could at least buy a new MG under the NFA rules, it would make them a lot more accessible to law abiding citizens that aren't wealthy.

Even the NFA getting completely overturned it wouldn't necessarily end the ban and new machine gun sales for civilians. At least you can buy suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs for reasonable prices, even if the process is complete unconstitutional BS.

Both should be overturned immediately, but if I had my choice it would be the '86 ban.

---

The '34 NFA is far more damaging because it covers a whole lot broader specturm of the feds stomping on rights than the '86 AWB does.

If the '34 act disappeared, a whole lot of the teeth that is in the '86 AWB are pulled out and there isn't much that would stop it from being systematically weakened. The '34 is far more oppressing of the two.

Both need to go. Every single infringement needs to go, but between the two, '34 first because it is the foundaton upon which every single other law is based.

You're not lying

Urban Ag said:

---

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

UA are you thinking of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? That one was signed by Clinton and did not go after specific models, necessarily, but banned aesthetic things like bayonet lugs. It also banned the sale of new magazines over 10 rounds except to military and law enforcement.

It was not renewed after it expired 10 years later.

Very useless piece of legislation. IIRC opponents pointed out crime actually increased over the decade since it was signed, which helped lead to its demise.

Yep. 90 years ago we got pushed down this slope.

schmellba99 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

If we're being honest and as much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's EO banning new full autos post 87 (may have been 86) was much worse than Trump banning bump stocks. Probably my single biggest critique of his entire presidency and I consider him the GOAT of at least the 1960's to the present. In fact, in the wake of the Vegas shooting I thought the bump stock ban was kind of political genius because no one really gave a sh**, they're pretty much worthless, and it helped shut up the anti-gun left (and right) at least for a little while.

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

It wasn't actually an EO. It was part of the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Some Dildo Democrat stuck it in as an amendment during a committee hearing and the Dems refused to pass the bill without the Hughes Amendment. Reagan ultimately signed it because the NRA advised him the act was important to protect gun rights, which is partly true. What wasn't true was that the NRA told him the MG ban would be overturned by the court's in short order. That didn't happen and the NRA hasn't lifted a finger to make it so.

That is my number one wish list item to be overturned. If you could at least buy a new MG under the NFA rules, it would make them a lot more accessible to law abiding citizens that aren't wealthy.

Even the NFA getting completely overturned it wouldn't necessarily end the ban and new machine gun sales for civilians. At least you can buy suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs for reasonable prices, even if the process is complete unconstitutional BS.

Both should be overturned immediately, but if I had my choice it would be the '86 ban.

---

The '34 NFA is far more damaging because it covers a whole lot broader specturm of the feds stomping on rights than the '86 AWB does.

If the '34 act disappeared, a whole lot of the teeth that is in the '86 AWB are pulled out and there isn't much that would stop it from being systematically weakened. The '34 is far more oppressing of the two.

Both need to go. Every single infringement needs to go, but between the two, '34 first because it is the foundaton upon which every single other law is based.

---

I don't disagree. I'm just saying if I could only have one it would be the '86.

techno-ag said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

UA are you thinking of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? That one was signed by Clinton and did not go after specific models, necessarily, but banned aesthetic things like bayonet lugs. It also banned the sale of new magazines over 10 rounds except to military and law enforcement.

It was not renewed after it expired 10 years later.

Very useless piece of legislation. IIRC opponents pointed out crime actually increased over the decade since it was signed, which helped lead to its demise.

---

No, I remember the 1994 AWB quite well and celebrated that day in 2004 when it hit its sunset. Fun fact, GWB told Congress to send it back to his desk with no sunset clause and he'd sign it. He was such a disappointment.

No, daddy Bush EO'd several weapons, I believe the "street sweeper" variety of shotguns. One in particular that was made in South Africa. You could turn them in or register them as NFA. It was purely a knee jerk response because they looked scary and someone on 60 minutes was crying about it.

Urban Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

UA are you thinking of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? That one was signed by Clinton and did not go after specific models, necessarily, but banned aesthetic things like bayonet lugs. It also banned the sale of new magazines over 10 rounds except to military and law enforcement.

It was not renewed after it expired 10 years later.

Very useless piece of legislation. IIRC opponents pointed out crime actually increased over the decade since it was signed, which helped lead to its demise.

---

No, I remember the 1994 AWB quite well and celebrated that day in 2004 when it hit its sunset. Fun fact, GWB told Congress to send it back to his desk with no sunset clause and he'd sign it. He was such a disappointment.

No, daddy Bush EO'd several weapons, I believe the "street sweeper" variety of shotguns. One in particular that was made in South Africa. You could turn them in or register them as NFA. It was purely a knee jerk response because they looked scary and someone on 60 minutes was crying about it.

---

SPAS-12 was another one.

One of the coolest shotguns ever.

aggieforester05 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

If we're being honest and as much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's EO banning new full autos post 87 (may have been 86) was much worse than Trump banning bump stocks. Probably my single biggest critique of his entire presidency and I consider him the GOAT of at least the 1960's to the present. In fact, in the wake of the Vegas shooting I thought the bump stock ban was kind of political genius because no one really gave a sh**, they're pretty much worthless, and it helped shut up the anti-gun left (and right) at least for a little while.

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

It wasn't actually an EO. It was part of the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Some Dildo Democrat stuck it in as an amendment during a committee hearing and the Dems refused to pass the bill without the Hughes Amendment. Reagan ultimately signed it because the NRA advised him the act was important to protect gun rights, which is partly true. What wasn't true was that the NRA told him the MG ban would be overturned by the court's in short order. That didn't happen and the NRA hasn't lifted a finger to make it so.

That is my number one wish list item to be overturned. If you could at least buy a new MG under the NFA rules, it would make them a lot more accessible to law abiding citizens that aren't wealthy.

Even the NFA getting completely overturned it wouldn't necessarily end the ban and new machine gun sales for civilians. At least you can buy suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs for reasonable prices, even if the process is complete unconstitutional BS.

Both should be overturned immediately, but if I had my choice it would be the '86 ban.

---

The '34 NFA is far more damaging because it covers a whole lot broader specturm of the feds stomping on rights than the '86 AWB does.

If the '34 act disappeared, a whole lot of the teeth that is in the '86 AWB are pulled out and there isn't much that would stop it from being systematically weakened. The '34 is far more oppressing of the two.

Both need to go. Every single infringement needs to go, but between the two, '34 first because it is the foundaton upon which every single other law is based.

---

I don't disagree. I'm just saying if I could only have one it would be the '86.

---

But without the '34, the '86 doesn't pass muster and doesn't exist.

MG's are fun, but they are a single item versus multiple items. Not a hard choice.

And now, the Supreme Court has overturned the bump stock ban:

Supreme Court Declares ATF Ban on Bump Stocks Illegal

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON, DC Attaching a bump stock to a rifle does not make it a machine gun, and thus the federal agency ban on bump stocks is illegal under federal law, the Supreme Court held on Friday.

"Congress has long restricted access to 'machineguns,' a category of firearms defined by the ability to 'shoot, automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.' Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns," Justice Clarence Thomas began in the majority opinion. "This case asks whether a bump stockan accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)converts the rifle into a 'machinegun.' We hold that it does not and therefore affirm."

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Huh?

---

Trump is an old school NY liberal that is very anti gun. His SC picks have also been playing kick the can with most decision involving the ATF. His supporters refuse to see it. This whole mess with the new "rules" the atf is kicking out started under his directive.

---

Why lie? Trump owns several guns and has a NY license to carry. So stop lying.

e=mc2 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Huh?

---

Trump is an old school NY liberal that is very anti gun. His SC picks have also been playing kick the can with most decision involving the ATF. His supporters refuse to see it. This whole mess with the new "rules" the atf is kicking out started under his directive.

---

Why lie? Trump owns several guns and has a NY license to carry. So stop lying.

---

In fact, there was just an article discussing revoking his gun license...

aggieforester05 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

If we're being honest and as much as it pains me to say it, Reagan's EO banning new full autos post 87 (may have been 86) was much worse than Trump banning bump stocks. Probably my single biggest critique of his entire presidency and I consider him the GOAT of at least the 1960's to the present. In fact, in the wake of the Vegas shooting I thought the bump stock ban was kind of political genius because no one really gave a sh**, they're pretty much worthless, and it helped shut up the anti-gun left (and right) at least for a little while.

GHWB also EO banned several specific firearms which set another really bad precedent but history has soured me on the Bush's so I don't mind stating that at all.

---

It wasn't actually an EO. It was part of the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Some Dildo Democrat stuck it in as an amendment during a committee hearing and the Dems refused to pass the bill without the Hughes Amendment. Reagan ultimately signed it because the NRA advised him the act was important to protect gun rights, which is partly true. What wasn't true was that the NRA told him the MG ban would be overturned by the court's in short order. That didn't happen and the NRA hasn't lifted a finger to make it so.

That is my number one wish list item to be overturned. If you could at least buy a new MG under the NFA rules, it would make them a lot more accessible to law abiding citizens that aren't wealthy.

Even the NFA getting completely overturned it wouldn't necessarily end the ban and new machine gun sales for civilians. At least you can buy suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs for reasonable prices, even if the process is complete unconstitutional BS.

Both should be overturned immediately, but if I had my choice it would be the '86 ban.

---

The '34 NFA is far more damaging because it covers a whole lot broader specturm of the feds stomping on rights than the '86 AWB does.

If the '34 act disappeared, a whole lot of the teeth that is in the '86 AWB are pulled out and there isn't much that would stop it from being systematically weakened. The '34 is far more oppressing of the two.

Both need to go. Every single infringement needs to go, but between the two, '34 first because it is the foundaton upon which every single other law is based.

---

I don't disagree. I'm just saying if I could only have one it would be the '86.

---

if '34 was gone it would make '68 and '86 moot