09-18-2017, 06:19 PM
stanc Wrote:I doubt that. Machine guns have more military importance than semi-auto rifles. Was "the fabric of American society" shattered when the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted?
The evidence says that Klem is right.
When the 1934 NFA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1968 GCA was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1986 machine gun ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
When the 1994 assault weapons ban was enacted, American gunowners accepted it, and life went on.
I don't see it being any different if semi-auto rifles are someday banned.
Heh, heh. I've always thought that California is the way it is because so many east coast liberals moved here. Although I guess they could be considered "foreign people."
No, it isn't. I do wish people would stop misusing the term, "war."
War is military combat, waged with force of arms.
This is a philosophical/social disagreement.
:confused: American gun owners did not prevent Bill Clinton from signing the 1994 AWB into law.
First of all Stan machine guns were not banned but overly taxed.
The 1968 GCA only restricted foreign made firearms and put more restrictions when purchasing them.
The 1986 machine gun ban restricted new manufacturing of machine guns not the ones already in the public domain.
The 1994 assault weapon banned the furniture,"looks" not the firearms and gun owners didn't accept it hence it was allowed to expire after the dem's lost control of congress.
War is a part of politics which make politics a part of war according to Clauzwitz:
WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS
We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.