This is troublesome...NFA trust people enter

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...002821658.html

I now cringe every time I see the term "loophole". They use it to just refer to something new that they want to prohibit. Like when they say all the CA-compliant "assault weapon" manufacturers were "exploiting a loophole" when they changed their guns to put them in compliance with the law. Or the "gun show loophole" to refer to the fact that the NICS/background check system is a special rule for dealers that was never intended to apply to ftf transfers.

How about the "speeding ticket loophole" - where if you drive under the speed limit you won't get a speeding ticket? Or the "jaywalking loophole", where if you cross in a marked crosswalk when the light says it's ok you won't get a jaywalking ticket?

Like when the apply "terrorist", "weapons of mass destruction" and "assault" to ordinary crimes and weapons - they're just changing the meaning of long established words in order to serve their agenda.

It's double-plus ungood IMHO.

control the language, control the argument.


the worst part is that the govt owns the media while we, the people, do not.

Wait? People still fallow NFA laws?

Just approve my SBR already!!

The NY Times article had quite a bit of misinformation in it. I know that the writer has already been contacted regarding the mistakes, but I'm sure the edit will happen on page three in tiny font in about six months.

I don't know how I feel about this yet, because I don't think that I have enough information to get freaked out at this point. To me it seemed more like a fishing expedition to see if it would rile people up for politicians to then persue.

Whatever happens, like I said in the NFA Talk thread, I'm glad that I pushed my stuff through earlier this year.