Full Auto Should Be Legal...?

[Konrad]

Ok, I come from a family that never owned a firearm. Since I reached adulthood, I have amassed many firearms and have had conversations with my family on the subject.

My family feels the 2nd Amendment is a valid amendment and supports the right of any citizen to lawfully keep and bear arms. They have simply chosen not to.

Recently we had a conversation about full auto firearms and I am soliciting opinions on the subject.

Before I pose the question however, here is some background;

I am a law student who is nearly done with school. I am a passionate supporter of the 2nd A. and I have been recently looking at the arguments that anti-gun proponents put forth as their justifications for banning many types of firearms.

I realized, that many of the arguments put out against semi-auto ownership would be just as applicable against full auto ownership. I.e. "Why do you need 'that much' firepower"?

I am 25 yo and I have never known a time when full auto firearms ownership didn't requires extensive federal licensing.

It occurred to me however, that the 2nd A. never placed a limitation on the type of firearm ownership that the citizens had a right to keep.

Rather it merely states "Shall not be infringed". Further, when the amendment was put into place, the citizens were using rifles that were of equal effectiveness as the rifles used by the military.

It then further occurred to me that the lethality of the bullet out of a full auto gun is the same as that of a semi auto.

My family argued that law exists to protect (at times) the people from themselves. They argued that the harm that say, a child could unintentionally cause to his family could be much greater with a gun that could dump 10 rounds with one trigger pull, then 1 round.

They called this the "collateral damage" justification for the prohibition on widely available full autos.

While I feel that certainly, a full auto COULD cause more damage, I pointed out that this was the point of the full auto gun. Further, that nearly anyone could cycle a semi-auto at a ROF that would come close to some full autos. Further, bump firing can be caused by an INEXPERIENCED shooter and effect full auto.

But that argument missed the greater point which focuses on what (i perceive) the intent of the 2nd A. to be.

I.e. a deterrent.

A deterrent against corrupt government (i.e. what the colonists suffered from King George III).

If in fact that the right to keep and bear arms is to be a deterrent, then shouldn't the deterrent be as great as it can be?

Further, I argued, if the "bad guys" have the full autos, should not the law abiding citizen be able to meet force with equal defensive force?

Unfortunately, I was not able to sway my family. They felt that the potential danger to the average citizen was too great and that having full autos severely limited was a good thing.

I feel that they MIGHT have some valid points, but as I said to them and my Wife, the 2nd A. was not built around accidents or the "Crazy"s its built around individual firearms ownership, presumably as a deterrant.

It was built around the idea of keeping the public armed to prevent government oppression and corruption.

My Wife was giving me strange looks after I suggested that full auto should be legal. I told her that it only seems strange that full auto isn't widely available because we've been brought up in a world where full auto isn't widely available.

If we had it, we wouldn't think twice about it.

My question is:
Do you think that full auto differs from full auto enough to limit it as severely as it is?

Any case law or citations would be greatly appreciated along with your opinions.

Regards,

Konrad

[ComradeBurg]

I'll chime in on this.

No I don't think there should be any difference between buying a fully automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm (or any other type of firearm for that matter).

I have several reasons for believing this. The first has to do with the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment. I take the constitution as it is written, in other words if there was suppose to be an exception to the right to bear arms it would have been written in (such as the first amendment exception to inciting riots).

The next reason is the reason the second amendment was written in there. It's there so we could overthrow the government should they turn tyrannical. This would seem to imply the founding fathers meant for the citizens to have equal firepower to the government (they also assumed a small military force, but I shall not diverge).

A third reason I have is the fact that law abiding citizens aren't going to use a fully automatic weapon for any unlawful purpose. Criminals do that. Criminals are also the ones who can get fully automatic weapons without much trouble. Making it easier for a regular citizen to get a full auto won't increase the supply of such guns to criminals since they have means of obtaining them illegally anyways.

I find no justifiable reason to restrict gun ownership period. Gun control doesn't work for the purpose of preventing crime. Why should the majority of people have their rights restricted because a few people will use a machine gun in a criminal manner?

[Wildalaska]

Wrong forum.

WildlawandcivilrightsAlaska TM

PS

The first has to do with the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment. I take the constitution as it is written, in other words if there was suppose to be an exception to the right to bear arms it would have been written in (such as the first amendment exception to inciting riots).

The Supreme Court disagrees

[3 gun]

Already is with the right paper work. Should not need any paperwork as I see it. Any firearm used by a cop or solider should be available to anyone with a clean felony record and the money to pay for it without any other restrictions.

[dr.j]

I think that they should be legal, as they are. It isn't that hard to file the proper paperwork for these, and as long as you are a law abiding citizen you can own them with a special tax stamp. I don't think that just anybody should be able to buy these weapons because they are more dangerous that single shot guns if not used carefully. Obviously all guns are dangerous if misused, but accidentally shooting off one bullet is not as dangerous as shooting 30. I don't think that it would be too much to ask that people who want to own full auto guns take a class that trains them on how to use them safely (like the army does). The high price of these guns is enough to deter the casual shopper, so it's not like everybody on the block would have one anyway.

[Bud Helms]

As each person discovers the Magic Words of the Second: "... shall not be infringed ..." it seems the discoverer must share it with us all.

This one is a little different, as some logic is presented in orderly fashion, as opposed to an emotional rant.

Konrad, my compliments on a well written post and well presented arguments, from your point of view.

I am moving this to the Law & Civil Rights forum. As a new Counselor in Law, you have come to one of the best places on the internet for a discussion of the Second and the limitations thereon. You will find a pragmatically mix of the interpretation, literally, of the wording of the Second, with the legal history of it's treatment, societal views that have grown from decades, nay generations, of propaganda and common sense.

I strongly recommend you read carefully the sticky threads at the top of each forum, particularly the General Discussion and L&CR fora, before proceeding.

[TheManHimself]

Well, realistically there's no such thing as "reasonable restriction"; maintaining arms parity with one's government for defense of liberty is a natural human right. This is a simple fact, and no human opinion from SCOTUS on down changes that reality.

Regarding the current US legal situation with regard to MGs, the NFA-type registration is easy enough for a good citizen to pass through; what needs to be eliminated is the '86 manufacture ban that puts MG prices absurdly out of reach of the average citizen.

[peetzakilla]

The very question presupposes that the Constitution was and is intended to lay the foundations of the governments right to restrict the freedom of the people.
A proper understanding of the role and purpose of the Constitution negates the question, it does not need to be answered.

The COTUS is intended to limit the governments control of the people. When the contents are viewed from that perspective, it is clear that the very question is invalid. No question, from a constitutional vantage point, can begin with "How does this restrict the peoples' right to..." because that very concept undermines the intent of the document.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


There's your answer. A proper understanding of the intended role of the COTUS eliminates a large majority of modern constitutional arguments.

The question MUST BE "How is and was this provision intended to limit the power of the government to restrict the people?" Any other interpretation presupposes that the people exist for benefit of government.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Konrad, This has been a frequent topic on this forum (old L&P) and I am one who agrees with the restrictions on full auto weapons and do not believe that an armed citizenry buttressed by the Second Amendment protects us from a corrupt government.

First, I do not believe that ANY right is without restriction or limit. The only type of world where there are absolute rights is an anarchy and only then if you have the power to enforce the right. Each one of the BOR is limited and the Second Amendment is no exception and if the limitation passes constitutional muster then there is no infringment on the right.

So, where to draw the line? In Heller Alan Gura who represented Mr. Heller spoke about weapons in common use by civilians. I submit that full auto weapons are not in common use by civilians (they are legal but heavily regulated and mostly owned by hobbyists and collectors) and therefore are not protected by the 2A. Further, I submit that FA weapons are not suitable for civilian self defense. I know there is a wide spectrum within the FA auto world going from a three round burst M16 to a .50 caliber heavy machine gun but the operation of FA weapons is I believe best left in the military world for which it was designed for fire suppression and area denial.

As to the theory, known by some as The Insurrectionist Theory under which the Second Amendment not only grants the personal right to bear arms, and gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical. I do not subscribe. I believe that theory is refuted by Article One Section Eight which gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" So, I don't think the Insurrectionist Theory (notwithstanding the numerous quotes from obscure folks like Tenche Coxe) holds any water. I believe the maturity and robustness of our democratic institutions and checks and balances contained in the COTUS protects us from tyranny and not an armed citizenry.

That is my view in a nutshell but I can expound on that too.

[TheManHimself]

Tell me, how do the checks and balances protect us from tyranny in a day when all three branches of the federal government are controlled by people who don't support our Constitution and are willing to do anything to bring about Euro-style Socialism in America?

If you don't understand the natural rights of man and why the threat of revolution is required to keep governments in-line, you should really study the whole of human history quite a bit more.

Edit: Let me clarify; I have no delusions of being involved in any massive revolution overtaking the federal government. It's not a winnable battle in the present time. But the bearing of military-style arms gives me the choice that if I cannot live free I can die trying. I don't have any notion of taking out government thugs and escaping into the woods like Rambo, but when they come for me, unarmed I can be manhandled and made a subject; armed they can take only my life, not my freedom. There's no grand hope in my mind of anyone ever undoing the evil that has infested modern society; but in my heart I can be certain that at least I will die a free man, can you?

[rshanneck2002]

Konrad,i hope you remember this when the ACLU comes around and trys to hire you pro bonno?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Tell me, how do the checks and balances protect us from tyranny in a day when all three branches of the federal government are controlled by people who don't support our Constitution and are willing to do anything to bring about Euro-style Socialism in America?

I think the three branches of government are controlled by the COTUS. Barack Obama and every single member of our Congress was freely and legally elected under it's rules and are bound by it's constraints. I think your belief of the "Euro-socialism" is very much overstated (I lived in Europe for 8 years and we are becoming nothing like them) and even if some of Europe's ideas like health care are partially adopted by the US that is not tyranny of in opposition to the COTUS. It might not be what you like but that in itself is not tyranny.

If you don't understand the natural rights of man and why the threat of revolution is required to keep governments in-line, you should really study the whole of human history quite a bit more.

I would suggest you might want to read about The Social Contract that man makes with his government to secure his freedoms and have social order. Remember my comment about absolute rights and anarchy. We don't live in the jungle anymore. What keeps our government in line is not the threat of revolution but the rule of law and our adherence to it. That is the beauty of our form of government unmatched by any other in history.

It's not a winnable battle in the present time.

Nor has it ever been nor will it ever be. I agree.

the bearing of military-style arms gives me the choice that if I cannot live free I can die trying.

I am afraid we part company here. This is a romantic illusion and when we gun owners say this sort of thing to non-gun owners (who outnumber us and vote) we sound like kooks. I won't sign up for that one.

but in my heart I can be certain that at least I will die a free man, can you?

Whether I die a "free" man will have nothing to do with my owning military arms. There is no connection between the two. Ask those in places like Somalia, where I saw virtually everyone armed with heavy duty military arms, if they are free. I saw no real freedom there.

[zukiphile]

I am a law student who is nearly done with school.

Congrats!

Unfortunately, I was not able to sway my family. They felt that the potential danger to the average citizen was too great and that having full autos severely limited was a good thing.

Your story illustrates a few lessons.

Discussing law with laymen-

Most often, laymen regard law as a political matter. This is to say that they look for the law to support their politically reached conclusions. This is not a matter of malevolence or corruption. The complexity of law discourages people from developing coherent and consistent views of it. It is also a fairly normal human response to see little value in liberties we choose not to exercise. Most people will not have a visceral reaction to laws that outlaw sagging trousers because normal people don't engage in the practice.

In the face of your recitation of "shall not be infringed" to your family, they knew two things. 1) they do not agree with the language and 2) enough people involved in the legal system have disagreed with it enough at some time and places to have infringed it. Since their position isn't built on COTUS language, your recitation can't address the basis of their position.

The influence of culture on law-

I concur in your observation that we regard guns differently as a consequence of how we regulate them. The consequent strangeness of the regulated item makes it politically easier to regulate.

One of the duties you will have as an attorney is to read the law with integrity. This will often place you in a politically unpopular position. Many of your brethren will adopt a vision of the law in which the clear intent of basic law can be explained away for political ends. You will choose how you explain your own fidelity to law.

The dangers of result oriented jurisprudence-

Many courts have decided first what result they want, then tortured law, language and reason to make that result happen. This is not just a problem in constitutional law; it makes a hash of the law of many states as well.


Edited to add -

I think you are correct to question whether there is any rational basis for restricting or taxing differently a rifle depending on whether it shoots automatically or semi-automatically. I also see lots of harm in making sound suppressors more expensive and rare.

[Wildalaska]

The dangers of result oriented jurisprudence-

Law itself is result oriented

WildsoislawdangerousAlaska TM

[Crosshair]

Already is with the right paper work.

So I can call up FN-USA and buy a new select fire P90? No, I can't. FA is banned except the ones grandfathered in before 86. There is a difference between legal and grandfathered.

I can buy/build new suppressors (Own two, getting a third), SBSs (Going to Form 1 an Ithaca 37), and SBRs (nothing planned.) I can't buy or build a new full-auto. Only pay massively inflated prices for decades old specimens.

[zukiphile]

Law itself is result oriented

Thanks for sharing your understanding of jurisprudence.

[Wildalaska]

Your welcome. Helps the layman.

WildputonyourlawyerhatAlaska TM

[zukiphile]

Your welcome. Helps the layman.

WildputonyourlawyerhatAlaska TM

Ken, I am not sure that your purpose is trollish self entertainment.

Even if you've never practiced, you are unlikely to believe that the inferior reasoning employed in result oriented jurisprudence improves or clarifies the law. It is pernicious to the degree that false rationales are subsequently incorporated into the body of case law.

[blume357]

actually they are for folks with enough money and the right connections. I have a friend down in Florida who owns a number of full auto weapons.

The bigger problem with full auto access is not so much the fed tax permit but that the number has been limited and the way I understand it you can't buy new.

[44 AMP]

Normal, right and proper, is what you grow up with. And, of course, its all in your point of view.

Firm believers in personal liberty and responsibility believe unrestricted full auto ownership is our right, the same as it is our right to own any property. We have "evolved" (or possibly devolved) into a society where "need" is the criteria for ownership, and only the worst possible outcomes are considered to balance against percieved need.

Add into the mix the fact that guns, while intellectually mere pieces of personal property, are considered "dangerous". Totally ignored (in practical terms) is the human factor. NO gun ever injures or kills anything without a human being directly involved.

But instead of focusing on the user, we focus on the tool. We focus on "prevention", by prohibiting ownership (or making it so onerous that only a handful will and can afford to own them) instead of punishment of those who harm others. Some states flat outright prohibit private ownership of full auto firearms.

Hollywood has spent the majority of the last century increasing their portrayal of full auto firearms as common, and always used for evil. Every bad guy seems to have one. Interestingly enough, these horribly effective weapons, capable of mowing down masses of people with a single pull of the trigger seem incapable of being able to hit the action hero (or inflict more than a flesh wound), while single rounds fired by the hero drop bad guys like the hammer of the gods.

Consider that in the last several decades, ALL of the mass shootings, where dozens or more were killed, NONE of them was done with a full auto weapon.

Indeed since the NFA of 1934, the number of crimes (other than "conspiracy" to violate firearms laws, and record keeping errors) committed by legal full auto owners is less than the number of fingers on one hand.

There are thousands of legal full auto guns (perhaps tens of thousands?), and yet in over 75 years the number of murders and robberies done with these guns in the hands of their legal owners is virtually zero. 1, perhaps 2, in all that time. Something to think about.

As to the 2nd Amendment being our bulwark against a tryannical govt, it is not. All it does is provide a legal check on such a govt disarming the general populace. With today's technology, many make the argument that we could not win against our govt, because they have machine guns, tanks, jet fighters, etc. And on the open field of battle, they are probably right. But htat is not, and never has been the underlying issue. The simple fact that we could resist with arms is what prevents us from needing to. Sure, if it came down to it, we might lose, but it is the percieved cost of winning that keeps tyrants from making the attempt, with physical force.

I would suggest you read the novel "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. While fiction, there are a number of very good and valid ideas expressed in it. You might just get an insight into some other viewpoints.

Isn't a movie just a fully automatic book?:rolleyes:

[nate45]

The dangers of result oriented jurisprudence-

Many courts have decided first what result they want, then tortured law, language and reason to make that result happen. This is not just a problem in constitutional law; it makes a hash of the law of many states as well.


I have a huge problem with this, whether the results obtained are to my liking or not.

There is a process for changing the constitution and convoluted reasoning is not it.

My view is that since the unconstitutional policies of FDR were rammed through by the leftist court, this problem has gotten progressively worse. It has also be practiced by those on the right.

They seek to implement a political agenda and then go about twisting logic and the intended meaning of the constitution to do it.

The whole notion that the court is, or is to be apolitical has become a farce.

[Wildalaska]

Even if you've never practiced, you are unlikely to believe that the inferior reasoning employed in result oriented jurisprudence improves or clarifies the law. It is pernicious to the degree that false rationales are subsequently incorporated into the body of case law.

I have practiced. Have you?

Result oriented jurisprudence is essential to proper interpretation of result oriented law, ie...all law. Law is written to obtain a result. Hence result oriented jurisprudence (interpretation of the law to achieve the result set forth in the law) does not necessarily entail false rationales, or inferior reasoning. Look at 4th Amendment issues for the best result of that

Perhaps you are confusing some concepts here. Would you be referring to what is commonly known as "legislation from the bench", which does entail the problems you set forth

WildalwayswillingtohelpfolksunderstandAlaska TM

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Konrad,

As you see, reasonable people can disagree on the isssue of gun rights. Of course, this being a firearms forum you will probably find more people posting here who would agree with, for lack of a better term, "Any Gun, Anyone, Anywhere." I believe strongly in individual freedom, the Second Amendment and am a gun owner but still believe that it is reasonable and at times beneficial to restrict possession and ownership of guns.

However, that being said there is a better way to remedy the full auto question. Organize politically and repeal the 1934 NFA, the Hughes Amendment from the 1986 FOPA and the 1968 GCA. Then start with other laws you don't like that regulate guns and repeal them too. The courts did not make those laws, the legislatures did. Rather than try and thwart them through the courts, vote them away!

You see, the real bulwark against tyranny is the vote. Get involved, organize and overcome. In my county here in TN, the County Commission wished to restrict our right to carry CCW in the county buildings. We organized and defeated the measure. No lawyers or courts needed! Cheaper too!;)

[zukiphile]

I have practiced. Have you?

Yes. I still do.

Result oriented jurisprudence is essential to proper interpretation of result oriented law, ie...all law. Law is written to obtain a result. Hence result oriented jurisprudence (interpretation of the law to achieve the result set forth in the law) does not necessarily entail false rationales, or inferior reasoning. Look at 4th Amendment issues for the best result of that


That is incorrect. Your misuse of the term suggests that you are unfamiliar with it, though I would have hoped my original explanation would have resolved any genuine confusion. I assure you that I didn't coin the term. See below.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODYxYTI5MjEyZDE5NzA2ZTUzZjc4M2U1YzQxZDY4ZmI=

If you regard with enthusiasm jurisprudence that determines a result first and only then seeks a justification for the result, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea difficult to understand.

Perhaps you are confusing some concepts here. Would you be referring to what is commonly known as "legislation from the bench", which does entail the problems you set forth[?]

No. "Legislation from the bench" is a distinguishable concept. If a google search leaves either unclear, feel free to request clarification.

I understand that you are a fixture here and may be given a wide birth. That's fine, but it doesn't make incivility more appropriate.

[dr.j]

I'm almost 100% sure that none of the people who wrote the second amendment ever had the pleasure of seeing a FA weapon. They would then have formed no opinion of them. Since the second amendment was written before these weapons existed, doesn't it seem sort of illogical to apply it to FA guns. Who can be sure that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted them included in the second amendment. If weapons like that existed at the time that the bill of rights was written, who knows what might have been different. Anybody who thinks that they can accurately get inside of some dead guys' heads and figure out what they would have wanted need to get their ego in check. The founding fathers of our nation trusted us to make changes and modifications to our rights depending on what was needed to make society function. The laws discouraging the ownership of FA weapons were passed in the 1930s to help stop violence associated with prohibition because that is what we thought was needed to make the country safe again.

I'm not trying to use my argument to justify outlawing these weapons, I'm only trying to say that sometimes it can be very complicated trying to apply modern situations to 200 year old documents. The best thing that we as present citizens can do is think for ourselves. We were given the power as a community to change laws and make the world better by adapting to new environments. I guess all I'm trying to say is that none of the laws we have are set in stone, and they sometimes need to be reworked to make sense in current times. Sir Newton's laws of physics made perfect sense 200 years ago. Now we know that they are not true (well those of us who payed attention in school know). If we had continued to apply old science to new situations we would not have been able to progress past our own legacy. We have been given the right by our forefathers to think for ourselves. We need to use modern arguments (there are plenty of good ones) to justify the ownership of FA weapons or we'll all look like ignorant kooks.

FA weapons are a tricky beast. I would be hard pressed to be able to justify my need for one. I honestly can't think of any situation in which I would need a full auto weapon, ever. One well placed bullet is better than missing 20 times. But if somebody really really wants one they should be able to have one as long as they know what they are doing with it. I do think it sucks that our government won't make something illegal outright, they just make it so inconvenient and expensive that most people don't exercise the right that they have.

[Wildalaska]

That is incorrect. Your misuse of the term suggests that you are unfamiliar with it, though I would have hoped my original explanation would have resolved any genuine confusion. I assure you that I didn't coin the term. See below.

Result oriented jurisprudence is not necessarily a term of art, unless you of course ascribe to "it means what ever the pundit says theory"...sort of like explaining the Bush doctrine?

If you regard with enthusiasm jurisprudence that determines a result first and only then seeks a justification for the result, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea difficult to understand.


If you regard with distaste jurisprudence that fails to determine a result first and only then seeks a correction for the result based on expediency, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea confusing for folks.

I understand that you are a fixture here and may be given a wide birth. That's fine, but it doesn't make incivility more appropriate.


Seens like you are the one indulging in ad hominems

WildpizzatimeAlaska ™

[zukiphile]

Result oriented jurisprudence is not necessarily a term of art, unless you of course ascribe to "it means what ever the pundit says theory"...

Or unless you are aware of that critique of defective jurisprudence.

If you regard with distaste jurisprudence that fails to determine a result first and only then seeks a correction for the result based on expediency, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea confusing for folks.

Expediency is the antithesis of principle and law. A law that commands us to do what is expedient is no law whatsoever. A jurisprudence that does whatever it prefers, but offers a tortured or implausible rationale, misuses the law and its own authority.

Seens like you are the one indulging in ad hominems

At no time have I attacked you personally for the purpose of undermining your argument, i.e. engaged in an ad hominem argument. My observation of your incivility arose from your misuse of a common term amongst attorneys discussing the judiciary. If your confusion was genuine, kindly accept my apology.

[Wildalaska]

My observation of your incivility arose from your misuse of a common term amongst attorneys discussing the judiciary.

LOL....Reminds me of my favorite barb, "Your Honour, my opponent is eloquent, but has no idea what we are talking about".

Don't confuse the issue with legalistic doublespeak, I gave up that game when I rejoined the real world...I say again...all law is result oriented, or it is not law at all

WildandsowedigressevenfurtherAlaska ™

[KChen986]

I always thought the 'Collateral Damage Justification' sufficed to restrict full auto weapons.

Weighing things in terms of pure utility, you have on one hand, the unfettered access to use and enjoyment of fully automatic weapons.

On the other hand, my concern lays with the uncontrollability of fully automatic weapons. Consider, drive by shootings and school shootings, done not with semi autos, but with fully automatic weapons.

To me, I think the collateral damage that may arise from FA weapons justifies their rarity.

Furthermore, the cost of FA weapons, upwards of $15,000 acts as a secondary barrier to criminal acquisition. Considering that (generally) criminals tend to be lower in Socio-economic status ("SES"), buying an auto weapon would cost their whole salary (unless...you're from/near mexican drug runners, heh). In short, those who can afford a FA weapon are most likely well off and by virtue of their SES are less likely to use such weapons for a crime.

There's always the slippery slope argument to counter my above comments. Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?

Good point. Sometimes it is tough to draw lines. The slippery slope argument is not a bad argument when you begin to consider that some might say: "I have not only a right to full auto but the entire spectrum of military arms and weapons available to our armed forces".

That is the slippery slope in reverse. Once we unrestrict and thus lower the prices for a M240 Squad Automatic Weapon why not a grenade or rocket launcher as well?

In my simple noodle the line seems to fall best at the full auto line. Why? I guess because the full auto operation seems to have been developed exclusively for military application and does not appear suitable for civilian SD or hunting where issues like collateral damage are more important than a free fire zone in wartime.

[dlb435]

The NFA (national firearms act-1934) was passed after public outrage at any number of machine gun related crimes. Before 1934 if you wanted a machine gun, you just bought it. Turns out that not many people wanted one. It wasn't any good for hunting (except maybe vermin), it wasn't much good for home defense and few people owned one just to play.
Criminals loved them. Lots of fire power, terror and they didn't care who else got hit.
The NFA did not ban machine guns, it only requires that you paid a tax.
Pres. Bush (1986, by edict), banned the production of new machine guns for private use.
The Supreme Court has refused to enter the debate. Why? Because any restriction of access to firearms by the Federal Gov. is prohibited by the second ammendment. As long as they don't have to rule, the law stands.
So what we have is a situation were the laws are cleary unconstitutional, but nobody wants to rock the boat.
So, what do you want? The status quo with basically illegal laws or gangs able to buy AK-47's at any harware store?
It's a tough choice either way.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting thread, I'll play.

My take is from studying research on the views of weapons type. There is fair evidence that many folks have unpleasant ideation primed by EBRs, military derviative guns, assault weapons that have a certain appearance - independent of their semi vs full auto configuration.

The argument is why one would need one and wouldn't only nuts want such a weapon. Rational arguments can be made for buying such guns as a law abiding citizen. I happily own some. However, the ease of buying the inexpensive EBRs of the soviet Patterns has filtered down to them being bought by gangs and used in a small but visible number of crimes or high profile rampages. That's what the average, nongun person who doesn't reach the issue sees.

If you wanted to sell full autos - one way to avoid those vivid instances of misuse is a price or qualification barrier to ownership. The current system has a price barrier of fees, the price of available guns and local authorities not authorizing sales - even if legal in your state.

If we dropped those barriers so that full auto AK- oids became cheaply available with only current NICS - there eventually would be drift into some high profile crime (just like Capone days) and that might cause a backlash down the firepower food chain to take out many semis. Folks don't like hicap mags for Glocks - why do you need such? So imagine the problems with some full auto rampages or gang incidents on the news?

While one can say the ban is illegal if you go for absolutist position - I don't see how you can make a personal protection utility argument that would really be convincing. You might make the insurrection argument but I know from past research that while many folks not in the choir will accept the personal protection argument - they don't buy the insurrection argument.

The best one could hope for IMO, is perhaps the current system in place with new manufacture allowed to be purchased with sufficient price walls to avoid cheap guns going into crime.

I don't think abstract arguments about the meaning of infringement or insurrection will have any sway in a legislative debate in the forseeable future with either party in control.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,

My bias against the unrestricted availability of military arms to civilians comes from my former life as a career Army Officer. I fear some of these weapons in law-abiding hands as much if not more than in the hands of criminals. Using them safely (not endengering innocents) in civilian SD situations would I fear be very problematic. Some will argue that but IMO there are some weapons too dangerous for the untrained unaccountable ordinary joe to possess.

I don't think abstract arguments about the meaning of infringement or insurrection will have any sway in a legislative debate in the forseeable future with either party in control.

This I agree with particularly the insurrection piece. Talking to the non-gun owning public about armed civilians revolting against the government stirs up fear and visions of kooks with very deadly weapons who are far more dangerous to the public than an imagined tryannical government.

The best one could hope for IMO, is perhaps the current system in place with new manufacture allowed to be purchased with sufficient price walls to avoid cheap guns going into crime.

Actually, the barrier to crime would be the NFA registration as the prices would plummet if newly made FA could be purchased. I don't think price that legal FA today command keeps them out of criminals hands anyway since they wouldn't get them through that avenue, but having many more available to civilians legally might create more opportunity to fall into the wrong hands.

[ComradeBurg]

Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?

This is part of the reason I don't think there should be a line when dealing with firearms. Anytime you establish a line or an exception to something you open the door to advancing the line and creating further exceptions.

You make a good statement with the 30 round magazines and collateral damage. The line is at automatic weapons and for a while was at large capacity magazines (and could return to that). After that do we do like Britain and decide all handguns should be banned because they are used in crimes and are portable enough anybody can have one? What about semi-automatic guns, they can unleash a torrent of lead pretty effectively. Once you open Pandora's box it's not easy to control nor close it.

We established heavy laws on automatic guns because of criminals. This is usually the reason for restricting things. What did it accomplish? Well the criminals just get their automatic weapons through illegal means. Gangs still have access to fully automatic weapons just as they did in the time the National Firearms Act was passed. It seems the act failed to accomplish it's intended goal. Making something illegal or exorbitantly expensive doesn't stop people from obtaining it, it just creates a black market. Barriers to entry only affect people who are willing to play by the rules.

The Supreme Court disagrees

Being I was stating my belief and not the law I don't see how the supreme courts' ruling have any bearing.

[Wildalaska]

Being I was stating my belief and not the law I don't see how the supreme courts' ruling have any bearing.

It's a reality check :)

WildsetsusapartfromthosewhodontliveinrealityAlaska TM

[dlb435]

I think you miss the point of the NFA. I't was not to prevent you from getting a fully automatic weapon. It was to send you to jail if you have one. The NFA was aimed at orginized crime. In most cases, it has worked. There are some few unfortunate civilians that have gone to jail because of this act, but that was not the intention.
My foolish uncle built a fully automatic weapon, got drunk and blasted away in his front yard. He ended up doing two years for that. Was he a threat? Well, mostly to himself. Did he deserve two years in jail? I'm not sure, but shooting a gun drunk should give you some jail time, full auto or not.
To the main point of the post: The second ammendment is there to prevent any government from becoming so powerfull that the people can not over through it. Thus, fully automatic weapons should be allowed.
At the same time, the people MOST likely to abuse fully automatic weapons are the criminal element. We need to curtail that.
Thus, we have a dilemma. On the one hand we can allow easy access to fully automatic weapons and live with the carnage from the criminal elements or we can restrict access and suffer a potential dictator in the future. This is not an easy choice. I would favor easier access than we have now, but not so easy as to allow any idiot with $1000.00 to get an M-16.
What do you think?

[Crosshair]

To me, I think the collateral damage that may arise from FA weapons justifies their rarity.

I am liable for the rounds I fire.

If I shoot an intruder with a SA rifle and the bullet goes through him through my wall, and into my neighbors house. Nobody is going to make TOO big a a deal of it. I'll probably have to cover the cost of repairs.

If I shoot an intruder with a SA and the bullet goes through him through my wall, and into my neighbors leg inside his house. People aren't going to be too happy, but will realize that there was no way for me to predict that that would happen. I'll probably have to cover the medical bills.

If I shoot an intruder with a FA rifle, empty the mag and have 30 bullets go into my neighbors house. People are not going to be too happy. That would be grounds for reckless endangerment.

Darwin will clean the gene pool very quickly.

Since the second amendment was written before these weapons existed, doesn't it seem sort of illogical to apply it to FA guns.

The 1st amendment was written when only the quill pen and manual printing press were available. Are modern high speed printing presses not covered by the 1st amendment? What about the internet?

The Bill of Rights is an All-or-Nothing deal. Yes there are reasonable restrictions. however, like the common yelling "FIRE" in a theater example. It only allows for restricting activities that pose an immediate danger to others. yelling "FIRE" in a theater poses immediate danger to others. Yelling "FIRE" while in a park does not. Owning a rocket launcher does not by itself pose an immediate danger to others, thus does not pass scrutiny of "reasonable restrictions".

We could use the red herring of, "What about Nukes", but it's a non issue.

1. They are expensive. Anyone that could afford one wouldn't want one and anyone that would want one can't afford one.
2. Who is going to sell you one? (That would be one way of getting rid of Iran's nukes.)
3. There is nowhere you can safely use it. No matter what you do you are going to somehow be causing direct harm to someone else,meaning you're gonna get sued 8 ways past Sunday. At least with a TOW missile or an RPG I can go out to the middle of nowhere and blow up old cars without hurting anyone.

[Wildalaska]

If I shoot an intruder with a FA rifle, empty the mag and have 30 bullets go into my neighbors house. People are not going to be too happy. That would be grounds for reckless endangerment.

Darwin will clean the gene pool very quickly.

Clean up who? the poor innocent schnook killed by some rambo with a subgun?

I would submit that reasonable restrictions in a civilized society include FA restrictions. They are far more dangerous in the hands of the unqualified, crriminal or incompetant than simple long guns or hand guns, and that reason alone renders the NFA constitutional in 2nd Am terms.

WildlikehowitzersAlaska TM

[MrNiceGuy]

I'm almost 100% sure that none of the people who wrote the second amendment ever had the pleasure of seeing a FA weapon. They would then have formed no opinion of them. Since the second amendment was written before these weapons existed, doesn't it seem sort of illogical to apply it to FA guns. Who can be sure that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted them included in the second amendment. If weapons like that existed at the time that the bill of rights was written, who knows what might have been different. Anybody who thinks that they can accurately get inside of some dead guys' heads and figure out what they would have wanted need to get their ego in check. The founding fathers of our nation trusted us to make changes and modifications to our rights depending on what was needed to make society function.

It's not a matter of channeling a dead person, it's a matter of learning from history.


http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp
"""------------The early British colonists, imbued with the English distrust for standing military establishments as a threat to civil liberties, incorporated the tradition of the citizen-soldier. In 1636, the first militia unit, the North Regiment of Boston, was formed, followed two years later by the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the oldest American military unit in existence.

One of the first acts of Parliament following the accession of William and Mary to the throne of England as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was to restore the old constitution with its provision that every man may arm for self-defense.

In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies."""

It's pretty obvious that the reason for the amendment was to guarantee the people the ability to fight tyranny.



The laws discouraging the ownership of FA weapons were passed in the 1930s to help stop violence associated with prohibition because that is what we thought was needed to make the country safe again.

Exactly. It was one unjust law put in place to make it easier to enforce another unjust law. The ratchet effect on our rights is all too real.
It's sad when someone uses the result of an unjust law to justify another unjust law to enforce the first one... but thus is our legal system.

[SwampYankee]

In response to:

I think that they should be legal, as they are. It isn't that hard to file the proper paperwork for these, and as long as you are a law abiding citizen you can own them with a special tax stamp.

In my state, Rhode Island, all class III devices are illegal for civilian ownership. We cannot have automatic weapons, silencers or short barreled weapons.

While my rights are certainly infringed, there is little I can do about it...

[dr.j]

I understand both of your points. I wasn't really trying to argue that the second amendment should not apply to all guns, though it never specifies what type of arms they are talking about (swords, knives, ninja stars?). The wording of the second amendment goes like this:

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While proponents of FA weapons look to the phrase "shall not be infringed", those who wish to see them excluded from the 2nd amendment can use the phase "well regulated" to just as easily demonstrate their point that not all guns need to be prevalent in civilian affairs.

A literal translation of this would obviously be impractical. I think many of us would agree that there are some "arms" that might not be suitable to civilians. Certain rocket/grenade launchers and things like flame throwers come to mind, mostly things that require special training to operate safely.

My original point was not that the second amendment is wrong or out of date or anything like that. I just think that it is best to use arguments that don't rely on intentionally vague guidelines written over 200 years ago. The threat of government tyranny is an outstanding case for why FAs should be available. Collateral damage is also a good case against it. Whatever stance anybody takes is fine. I just get sick of hearing people paraphrase the bill or rights when there is better evidence to use. I would love to see more people use real concrete data and statistics to make the case relevant to today. Cases presented in this way give more legitimacy to gun owners' rights and are a heck of a lot more convincing than "shall not be infringed"



Swamp Yankee: That is unfortunate. Try moving to the south, it's still america down here

[nate45]

Well, our erudite friends who support the NFA certainly do put forth a logical and well reasoned debate, at least on the surface. My contention however, is that underneath their impassioned pleas for sanity and calls to consider public safety, is the same fear and distrust of law abiding citizens that drives the agenda of those who want to ban all firearms. The cries of they are 'too dangerous' and only the police and military should have them, are the exact same ones that the Brady Bunch use every day in reference to all firearms.

Now before anyone gets overly excited, or accuses me of calling them anti-gun, or somehow being like unto Brady supporters, I want you to know that is not at all the case. I sincerely believe that everyone who has so far posted in this thread supports the RKBA.

The only point I'm trying to make, is that your calls for support of the NFA, no matter how well intentioned are based on the same logic used by those who want no private ownership of firearms whatsoever. Remember that the antis also believe that their ideas will make society safer, by severely limiting personal weapons ownership.

Automatic rifles, pistols and submachine guns are personal weapons. It does not take a crew to run them and they are not WMDs. In the end, when all is said and done, the reasoning behind arguing against their private ownership sounds no different to me than the reasoning behind restricting and banning all other personal weapons.

[dr.j]

The best way to combat a well reasoned and logical debate is with a more logical and well reasoned debate. The best way to show that these guns should be more legal is to show people how rare it is for a FA weapon to be used in criminal activity outside of hollywood. Not by quoting the bill of rights.

[Konrad]

First off, thank you to all who have taken the time to leave calculated and well thought out responses.

I realize that posting this type of thread on a forum such as this is essentially preaching to the choir, but I was happy to see those who had opinions against more widespread FA ownership.

I say I was happy, not because I agree per se, but because my intent in writing this thread was to hash out the issues...on BOTH sides.

I see after two pages and a couple of PMs (Thank you by the way) that people have put much thought into their responses.

Here is why I brought this issue up;

I have been recently reviewing the various arguments made by ant-gun parties and what struck me most was the fact that I simply didn't have a single good reason why I "Need" a semi auto.

Sure, I could start talking about follow up shots in hunting and SD, or timed sport shooting events etc... but it occurred to me that all of those situations COULD be fulfilled by a bolt action/lever action/pump action or revolver.

In short, I don't NEED a semi auto, I WANT them.

Then, it occurred to me that if I don't "NEED" a semi- auto how come I am allowed to have one?

This got me thinking about the 2nd A. and its purpose. Certainly no one knows what the founding fathers were actually thinking. But I submit that we don't need to. Rather, we must remember that they were mere men (Though apparently endowed with an amazing amount of wisdom). These men were effectively traitors to their country of origin and they were doing their darnedest to prevent the injustice that they felt had oppressed them, from happening to their new country.

Among the many checks and balances (Laid in law) was this curious provision that guaranteed the citizen's rights to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers inserted this provision in a strangely vague manner. That is, within the sentence "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Being a law student, that is a student of the law and a man who has effectively committed himself to that law I have a difficult time bringing both the law and this seemingly self destructive provision into alignment.

Notwithstanding, I have dwelt on this matter long and hard and concluded that there are three (3) major reasons why the 2nd could have or was inserted into our Constitution.
1. The "Sporting" purpose for individual firearms ownership. I.e. for hunting and target shooting.

2. Self defense against non-governmental threats.

3. The most ominous is the implication of maintaining "security of a free state". In essence I take this language to be a physical, not merely legal, ultimate check.

Based on the context of the creation of this country, I conclude that this third basis for the 2nd A. has merit (as do the first two). However, it is a dangerous and conflicting merit. I.e. there is no law which tells the citizens (or states and citizens) when they may take up arms against the Fed. Govt.

If our own courts have taught us anything, it is that we are NOT to take matters into our own hands, but are to comply with the law (Unjust or not) and challenge it via accepted legal means. (See unauthorized civil rights marches in the 50s and 60s).

I for one have not discovered a way to reconcile these two competing perspectives.

Returning however, to the issue of why we "need" certain types of guns I look to the 3 reasons for private ownership.

1. Sporting purposes: For sport alone, it is difficult to state absolutely (emphasis added to the word absolutely) why the citizens need to be allowed to own semi autos. The majority of hunting rifles are bolt action with small magazines or clips. Target shooting does not require a high ROF and clay shooting can be easily enjoyed with pump actions.

2. Self Defense: The argument for need of semi auto increases in this category but not exponentially. Most would agree that one of the best forms of home defense firearms is a pump action 12guage. However, if someone doesn't have the shotgun, an argument could very easily be made for the need for follow up shots to a drugged up assailant who feels no pain. Throw in the virtual guarantee that the adrenaline charged and inexperienced armed citizen will barely be able to hit the broad side of a barn during the attack and a good case can be made for a semi auto. Still, anti gunners could state that such needs are met by revolvers. (For concealed carry etc...).

3. "...necessary to the security of a free state...": This is what has been labeled as the "insurrection theory". If this is in fact at least one of the reasons for the insertion of the 2nd A. then the "Need" for semi auto grows tremendously. If in fact the Founding Fathers believed that an armed populace would serve as a deterrent then the need for the civilian population to be allowed to bear semi autos becomes very strong.

It doesn't end there however, because if deterrance was one of the reasons for the insertion of the 2nd A. then why should the citizenry be limited to semi autos? In fact, full auto would be the logical stopping point as it is what the military uses and would therefore, theoretically, be using against its citizens.

I am but a humble law student and I realize that there are undoubtedly countless wiser minds out there who could find foils to my arguments.

I admit that my logic path could be used to justify ownership of far more dangerous devices such as explosives of all sizes. I will ponder that issue further.

However, my purpose here is not SO MUCH to make an argument, but more to bounce these ideas off the learned members who view this.

This all started for me when I saw a question that I heard posed by an anti gun woman to Wayne La' Pierre; "Why do you need semi autos...".

I realized at that moment, that, for all that I thought I knew about the law and this Country, I didn't have a rock solid answer.

I don't like the notion that "Insurrection" is the best justification for owning large capacity mags and semi autos.

I love my country and the law that is this nation's backbone. I concede that, as any product of human design, our system may not be perfect. However, I plan on remaining a United States citizen till I die and I will cherish the privileges and freedoms I am entitled to as a result.

Sincere Regards,

Konrad

[dr.j]

Militia arms and hunting arms were much more similar to one another in 1789 (same exact gun I'd bet). Major distinctions between the two did not really come to be until the 20th century (about the time that the NFA rules came about). When the second amendment was written, the budget for the national army was very small. The success of national security rested on the civilian/soldier. As late as 1798 leaders such as Alexander Hamilton were still worried about the implications of having a permanent national army and barely voted to expand it to ten thousand troops. When the bill of rights was written there was almost no U.S. army for the citizens to fear. Britain was the main threat. Local militias were much more organized and important. They were necessary to protect us against hostile Natives and Outlaws. There were no helicopters to deploy the national guard to New Orleans or anything like that. Citizens were more directly responsible for their own safety. If something horrible happened in your neighborhood it could be days until the government even knew about it. Oh yeah, and there was no such thing as a police officer in 1789, The first modern police force was founded in 1829 in London. the best one could hope for was a sheriff and a group of volunteers, but isn't that just another way to say militia. I'm also pretty sure that black people were property, and women couldn't vote. The world was very different then. The founders were very wise, but they were sometimes wrong and they should not be quoted as if they were the voice of the almighty in heaven. The second amendment is a landmark idea, and honestly I feel lucky to be able to own any guns. I have many friends in other countries who are not as fortunate. People in this country have more gun rights than almost anyone and I feel lucky to be an American and so should most of you, The fact that even some of us can own machine guns is rare here in the first world; we should be thankful for what we have, not bitter for what we don't. I'm not really trying to say that protection from tyranny wasn't part of it, obviously it was, but it was not the only reason.

I think it is important for us to look beyond government tyranny in support for guns because it is pretty fatalist and honestly it freaks out liberals. As long as liberals think that the main reason why we want guns is to start revolutions then they will try their hardest to keep them away from us. The best way that I can think of to help the cause of gun supply is to provide cheap or even free classes (not mandatory) in firearms safety so that if people are going to have guns they will be more likely to be smart with it. This could help ease the nerves of the liberals some and get them to back off a little

Konrad: I really liked this thread. I totally support gun ownership, but this thread really made me think about what you had said, do I really need one, or just want one. I think that most experienced shooters can agree that one well placed single shot it the best way to take out a target. So then, why do we need them? Basically we don't. As you said we want them, and that's fine. The constitution allows us the pursuit of happiness, and if blasting off 30 rounds out of an AK-47 in a safe way makes you happy then heck yeah, go for it!!

The main thing that peaked my intrigue was your idea that this is not a need, it is a want (which is fine, this is america right?). But the interesting idea is that the founding fathers included this amendment with the explicit purpose of giving us the ability to do something that is about as illegal as it gets, starting a revolution. It's one of the only laws that is put in place so that other laws can be broken should the majority of us see fit. From a legal perspective it is unique in that regard.

I think I'm going to start a thread dealing with practical (legal) situations where a FA gun would really be a better choice. I think that it is important to illustrate their utility if we are ever to convince anybody to decrease the restrictions.

[blume357]

more full auto weapons means more people practicing with them and this means more ammo shot, which means more ammo bought and more spending and more jobs.. economic recovery!

Sorry, had to throw a joke in there.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would comment that it is a mistake to necessarily think that conservatives support more lenient firearms ownership. It depends on your species of conservatives. The economic elitists are not ok with power residing in the hands of the common folk. Using the power of the state against workers is not unknown. Seizing property for the betterment of the rich and powerful is not unknown.

The denizens of the gated community, golden parachutes and bonuses might look awry at a citizenry who owns FA weapons and then watches a show about the French revolution on the History channel.

Off with their heads - easily might be applied to the next wave of Bank of Corrpution officers who get bonuses as they foreclose on you and your job disappears because CEO Lance MoneyBucks the III has sent your job to Mumbai.

Think deeply, Grasshopper. about insurrection before you glibly suggest who supports the ability of the common folk to resist government. It is probably not a resurgent social conservative movement (which would have little traction outside a slice of the South) which is feared by the power structure but a populist, anti the affluent establishment revolution that is feared. In fact, the social conservative issues can be seen as diversions from the real sources of power issues.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Konrad,

Thanks for bringing up this thread and I am very pleased with the tenor and tone the thread has produced.

Here are a couple of my thoughts.

First, I do not think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect us from a tyrannical internal government. Note the bolding, I think the purpose of the militia and the Second Amendment was to protect us from foreign governments really invaders like Great Britain (which happened in 1812!) there was your security of a free state, and for citizens to protect themselves from each other, indians, and other personal threats. The protection from tyranny is found in the genius of checks and balances between the three branches of government and further still by delegation of powers to the states with the BORs as the standard by which all regulation or restrictions of the people must be measured.

I look thru history and find that our democratic institutions backed by Federal power have made us freer with each passing decade. I see no instances (please don't bring up The Battle of Athens in TN) where simple armed citizens on their own defined or enhanced liberty or freedom in this country. I think the Founding Fathers feared a large standing Army but as Dr. J pointed out, the nature of warfare and the world changed and today we need one.

My bottomline, the 2A right of a citizen to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves personally from criminals, critters in the woods or personal threats and not from our government. The militia is no more and although some states have provisions for one, none exist in the same way they did in 1787. Today, we are protected in a macro sense by a standing army and professional police forces and personally by our own firearms. I believe that to be the state of gun rights today.

When gun owners talk about citizens owning guns to be used to overthrow the government by force, it scares a lot of people with good reason because it smacks of lawlessness. What the non-gun owning person hears is: "If the government does something I don't like and I don't have the votes to stop it I'll revolt!" Maybe not what you mean but that is how it is taken and that give we gun owners a bad name. I believe that is why the insurrection theory gets no traction in the public place of ideas or the courts.

One final thing about semi-autos and sporting uses. The AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot and I submit that today their may be more "shooters" than hunters and so I wouldn't limit sporting uses to just hunting deer or rabbits.

[Wildalaska]

Off with their heads - easily might be applied to the next wave of Bank of Corrpution officers who get bonuses as they foreclose on you and your job disappears because CEO Lance MoneyBucks the III has sent your job to Mumbai.

Reading the Daily Kos again Glenn?:D;)

WildineedaboardtoranteconomyonAlaska TM

[Webleymkv]

I started and participated in a thread along the same train of thought as this one in the now defunct legal and political forum this past summer. Tennessee Gentleman and myself debated the issue at great length, and anyone who wishes to see it can do so very easily using the search function (it's quite an interesting read). Without getting into such a drawn out debate (it's already been hashed out in that other thread and I don't really feel like doing it all over again), I'll simply state my position and let that be the end of it. I do not believe that fully-automatic weapons should be regulated any more severely than any other type of firearm. If used responsibly, I've seen no evidence that they represent any greater threat to public safety than other firearms, and those who wish to use them irresponsibly or illegally can still obtain or fabricate them relatively easily. Because of this, I believe that the current restriction of fully-automatic weapons, for the most part, only effects responsible gun owners who are already law-abiding citizens.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The only point I'm trying to make, is that your calls for support of the NFA, no matter how well intentioned are based on the same logic used by those who want no private ownership of firearms whatsoever. Remember that the antis also believe that their ideas will make society safer, by severely limiting personal weapons ownership.

Nate, good points and this illuminates something I adhere to when reading posts on TFL or talking about guns rights to others.

I don't look at the Brady types in black and white focus. One thing I learned in school years ago is that political or military opponents tend to project mirror images of themselves on each other. The other side is always, stupid, corrupt and malevolent and if you don't agree then you are a traitor. Such mental orthodoxy seldom produces anything useful and just tends to polarize the debate.

I like to look at the ideas and judge and discuss them objectively rather than just saying "well that's a communist idea!". We have debate on this forum about things like background checks, private sales, and the NFA and I think considering all sides of those debates make us better informed.

Logic is not the sole province if any side and the Brady people have some logic IMO on some issues. This may make me sound like a sell-out but I am not. I do want to explore the reasoning and logic of all sides and by doing so it gives me a sanity check that I always need;)

PS I hope when you used the term erudite, you weren't talking about me. This would ruin my reputation:)

[nate45]

First, I do not think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect us from a tyrannical internal government. Note the bolding, I think the purpose of the militia and the Second Amendment was to protect us from foreign governments really invaders like Great Britain

Thats what you think and thats fine, it is your right and prerogative to think what you will, but here is what I think.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, notice that comma Tenn? I believe that the founders recognized the very thing that you do, that a standing army was necessary to the security of a free state, to defend against those foreign enemies you speak of. At the time this was written though the founders had just finished fighting the large standing army that was there to protect them from foreign enemies, that army was fought by the citizen army of the colonies. They also recognized that their current large standing army, that was necessary to defend against foreign invaders, such as the War of 1812 you referenced, might some day have to be defended against again by private citizens, hence the second half of the sentence... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not the army, not the members of the militia, but every private citizen, the same private citizens that had just defeated the last standing army.

So my view of the 2nd is that the founders recognized that to defend the country they needed a military force, but they also recognized the potential for unscrupulous leaders to abuse the power of that military force. So to counter it they made sure that private citizens would retain the arms needed to oppose such a threat.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If used responsibly, I've seen no evidence that they represent any greater threat to public safety than other firearms, and those who wish to use them irresponsibly or illegally can still obtain or fabricate them relatively easily. Because of this, I believe that the current restriction of fully-automatic weapons, for the most part, only effects responsible gun owners who are already law-abiding citizens.


It is the irresponsible use that is the decision point. To play Devil's advocate - is it really the case that the rampage shooter can easily make or obtain them? We have had a few dozen rampages without FA weapons. Would not Cho or the NIU shooter, for instance, who were fascinated by weapons and got them through normal and easy channels, not have bought fully auto guns if available with the same ease. You could just as easily argue that you don't seem them used but those to whom they would be attractive because of the restrictions.

That we don't see them used much in crime speaks to the difficulty of getting them by the irresponsible.

Sorry, to sound like a negative here - but if you want to make a case - you need to be able to deal with such propositions.

And to Ken - not reading the Daily Kos - watching my pension plan crash. As my grandmother said: "After the revolution, we will all eat strawberries!"

Nice old Russian lady - I have a jewelry box from her, covered with a piece of the Czar's carpet. Guess what happened to him.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I believe that the founders recognized the very thing that you do, that a standing army was necessary to the security of a free state,

Nate, actually I think the Founding Fathers feared a standing army and preferred the militia as a way of keeping military power decentralized from the feds. Also, a militia was much cheaper than a standing army which required tax dollars and beaurecracy to stay maintained. The standing army really did a lot of housekeeping things back then. In fact West Point was originally a place to train engineers to be used for territorial expansion. Since threats to the republic were slow to develop they reasoned that a militia could be raised, equipped and controlled by the government and then used to defend the country. Saying the militia would be used for overthrowing the government contradicts Article One Section Eight of the COTUS.

hence the second half of the sentence... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not the army, not the members of the militia, but every private citizen,

I agree with this above but not this below:

but they also recognized the potential for unscrupulous leaders to abuse the power of that military force. So to counter it they made sure that private citizens would retain the arms needed to oppose such a threat.

I think the reason for allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms was for personal defense as Justice Kennedy questioned Mr. Dellinger in the Heller case just decided and to provide armed manpower to the militia to fight insurrections and foreign enemies.

[nate45]

Well, Tennessee Gentleman, you and I, will have to agree to disagree.:)

First I want to emphatically state that I do not at the present time feel that our government is a mortal enemy to freedom and our republican form of government. I do however believe it is now and has always been a potential enemy of freedom and our republican form of democracy. Or to be more specific the wealth and power of our government and the potential, however unlikely, for the abuse of that wealth and power.

I myself fully support constitutional solutions to all of our political and legal quandaries, I even support those solutions and court decisions that are not to my liking. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that a revolution will ever occur in this country, unless there were extraordinary circumstances, such as the wholesale abandonment of the COTUS in an attempt to institute some completely different, possibly authoritarian form of government. Then a revolution is not only possible, but in my view would be justified and necessary.

I understand the fear and reluctance to even contemplate armed revolution, I fear it myself, I don't want it. Nothing that has transpired politically in this country in my lifetime has ever made me think one was needed, or even need be contemplated. However to suggest, given the history of world governments, that it is beyond the realm of possibility is over optimistic and somewhat naive.

It is right and correct for sane men to loath and fear revolution, for instance only 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolt against the Crown. Extraordinary circumstances however require extraordinary measures.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Nate,

Actually we agree quite a bit. I actually support just about everything you said in your post #55.

As to a wholesale abandonment of the COTUS? It is not (nor is anything really) beyond the realm of possibility I concede. However, I look at that sort of thing like I look at the Russian saying about Nuclear War and the End of the World. The living will envy the dead. I will be long dead before a true authoritarian rule is in place so worrying about it is a waste of time for me.

I do worry a little about my home being invaded by a thug or being carjacked robbed and murdered and so arm myself accordingly. But the U.S. government going south on freedom and liberty? Naw.

[Konrad]

To all who have posted:

Thank you!

At the risk of tooting our own horns, I cannot help but think that the conversations we have had and the positions we have taken are somewhat similar to those that occurred more than two hundred years ago.

For all our complaints and or grumbling about the system, it is a beautiful sight to see US citizens being allowed to discuss these matters in a sincere and learned manner.

This has got to be one of the best forum conversations that I have seen in a while.

To me, I see smart minds on both sides of this argument. It seems to me that as one member said so rightly "reasonable minds" can differ on this subject of full auto firearms ownership.

I support it.

Thanks to all of you who have put so much time and thought into this thread.

If any of you are in the Central Fla. area drop me a line if you could use some company at the range!

Regards,

Konrad

[Wildalaska]

And to Ken - not reading the Daily Kos - watching my pension plan crash.

Fannie Mae, my friend, and the cult of affordable housing for all...:D

WildcallmebarneyfrankAlaska TM

[dr.j]

I would comment that it is a mistake to necessarily think that conservatives support more lenient firearms ownership. It depends on your species of conservatives. The economic elitists are not ok with power residing in the hands of the common folk. Using the power of the state against workers is not unknown. Seizing property for the betterment of the rich and powerful is not unknown.

You are absolutely right. We are all different and special like snowflakes.

What I should have clarified is that I was using the distinctions liberal and conservative as it applied to ones belief on just this issue, gun rights (liberal-more regulation and conservative-less regulation). What I'm writing about has nothing to do with the economy so economic elitism really isn't a factor, but I do see what your saying, point taken. I have found that gun rights especially in my area of the country are much more universally respected. Most all of the democrats I know are also gun owners and take some issue with what their party often tries to do, but guns aren't the only political issue out there and their passions must lie elsewhere.

[Webleymkv]

It is the irresponsible use that is the decision point. To play Devil's advocate - is it really the case that the rampage shooter can easily make or obtain them? We have had a few dozen rampages without FA weapons. Would not Cho or the NIU shooter, for instance, who were fascinated by weapons and got them through normal and easy channels, not have bought fully auto guns if available with the same ease. You could just as easily argue that you don't seem them used but those to whom they would be attractive because of the restrictions.


Glenn, what you fail to take into account is that both shooter could have obtained arguably more effective weapons such as a semi-automatic AR-15 or Saiga 12 shotgun (both weapons are, to my knowledge, perfectly legal in Illinois and Virginia and subject to no further regulation than any other firearm) just as easily as the weapons that they chose (handguns and in the case of the NIU shooter a pump-action shotgun). Likewise it could be argued that had the victims of these shootings had access to fully-automatic weapons (or any weapons at all for that matter) the results may have been much different. My point is that hypothetical situations, while often interesting, don't really prove or disprove a point. I do, however, think that it's safe to say that these two individuals did not choose their weapons on the basis of "it's the best they could get" as that was clearly not the case. Finally, I think that we start down a slippery slope when we discuss firearms restriction based on hypothetical situations as one can justify almost any restriction based on "what ifs." As I said before, I debated many of these concerns with Tennessee Gentleman at great length in another thread not too long ago, and it was closed by Antipitas because it wound up going nowhere. Rather than go into another 15-page debate, I'll simply post the link to that thread and let that be the end of it.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299021

[sundog]

Hey, you're a smart guy. Read history. Prohibition (18th Amd), black market booze, organized crime, NFA34. Used to be full autos weren't a problem. ATF came into being during this period. Then, repeal prohibition (21st Amd), but NFA34 stayed, ATF stayed,....

[44 AMP]

When the number of NFA weapons was frozen to what was already in the inventory. Once the supply became fixed (and done by voice vote only, at the "last minute" an amendment tacked on to an otherwise good bill), the prices started jumping hugely, above and beyond the $200 transfer fee and inflation.

I personally would be ok with the current NFA system, IF new guns were allowed to be added, AND all states allowed ownership under Federal approval. Since the Federal system requires approval from the head of your local law enforcement agency, I really don't understand how a state could object, except for the fact that some of them have had a total ban on the books for some years.

Yes, we, the law abiding citizens, should be able to just buy a full auto the same as any other gun. But reality is that we haven't been able to do so for generations. I think that repeal of the freeze on the registry is where we should concentrate our efforts. The general 0public has been brainwashed for generations, repeal of the entire 34 NFA is just not possible. But opening the registry back up, so approved citizens can enjoy the privilege of legally owning an FA firearm, this might be possible.

[chrisknox]

Being a Second Amendment fundamentalist, I detest the restrictions on full-auto, and frankly, thnk the NFA would be constitutionally questionable if the Courts interpreted the Second Amendment as half as broadly as they interpret the First Amendment. A Revolutionary War infantryman who went to sleep in 1777 and awoke today would marvel at our technology but it would be far easier to explain firearms technology, including full-auto, than it would be to explain communications technology. So does that mean that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to the Internet?

Realistically, I know the NFA isn't going anywhere. But if you accept it, you also have to accept what comes with it, which is to-the-letter enforcement. A malfunctioning semi-auto can land you in jail. Don't believe me? I suggest a web search on "Olofson accidental felon" (we carry extensive coverage on our web site (http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=63&mosmsg=Item+successfully+saved.)). The Olofson case is an example of the "collateral damage" one accepts if one aceepts the NFA.

As a practical matter, if I'm in a gunfight, I'll take my trusty dusty ol' .45 and I'd much rather the other guy be armed with a full-auto weapon. I've seen a head-to-head match of sub-guns vs. pistols which merely demonstrated the fact that you can't miss fast enough to win.

[Re4mer]

Well I can't say that I am a lawyer, however as of right now with an extensive background check private citizens CAN own full-auto's that were manufactured before a certain date which I believe was 1986. Here is a website that gives some specific information on the legal issues involved.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hypotheticals are thrown about on both sides. We don't know why Cho chose what he did. His weapons were easy and quick to get and easily portable to campus. That makes as much sense as saying he should have walked across campus with an AR - hard to do.

The claim was that we know that increasing easy access to NFA weapons would have little impact on rampagers. We don't know that and my speculation that it would aid rampagers is just as rational.

Also, if you try to make the case to have easy access to NFA weapons, my analysis would surface and sorry to say be hard to refute by saying why didn't someone buy XYZ.

I agree that is pie in the sky to expect easy access and the best that might be hoped for is access with the current system to new manufacture.

[44 AMP]

But if you accept it, you also have to accept what comes with it, which is to-the-letter enforcement

I would say, NO, we don't have to accept that. For the first few decades after the passage of the NFA, minor paperwork violations didn't automatically send owners to jail. Unregistered guns, when discovered, could be registered, and the taxes paid. Federal agents generally did not go out of their way to persecute the legal owners, and malfunctioning weapons were clearly not considered intentional machine guns.

That started changing back in the 1960s and has continued ever since. Legal machine gun owners who have a mistake in their paperwork are faced with swat team tactics. Over what should be, at worst, a $200 tax matter. The ATF registry of FA firearms was for many years one of the worst kept of federal records. Many instances of the feds losing their copies of registration have occurred. In the old days, when this happened, the owner simply showed the feds his copy, and problem solved. Today, the owner is likely to be charged with a crime, anyway. The enthusiastic enforcement and tactics in use today are not something mandated by the law. They are the result of the people in the administration, those setting policy, and their desire to look good to their bosses, and justify expanding their kingdom and budgets.

The 1986 freeze not only prohibits new made machine guns from being added to the civilian registry, it prevents ALL additions to the registry. So, if you find that grandpa or great grandpa had an unregistered Tommygun, or BAR stuffed in a trunk in the attic for the last 50 years, you CANNOT legally own that gun, no matter what. You cannot register it with the Govt and pay the tax, the govt will not (by law) let you. You cannot keep it, and keep your mouth shut about it, that is a crime. You can't even legally have it deactivated and keep it, as the feds rules only allow that under certain conditions. You MUST turn it in to the feds, and pray that some overzealous type doesn't try to prosecute you. The usually don't in a situation like that, but stranger things have happened.

The website link provided by Re4mer has some interesting info, but there are important things missing as well. In particular, the words "at the rate of" in this sentence.
A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second

only a belt fed medium or heavy machine gun is capable of actually firing over400 rounds in a minute (and only if you have that much ammo linked together). No matter how high the cyclic rate, submachine guns and assault rifles (the real ones, the select fire ones) cannot do this. The need to change magazines, and the skill of the shooter doing so (meaning the amount of time it takes to change the mag) means that they cannot actually fire as many rounds as their cyclic rate numbers imply.

The numbers of actual illegal machine guns used in crimes, or seized during crimes (without actually being fired) has been repeatedly shown to be significantly less than 1% of crime guns, even when using the broadest definitions.

Contrast this with decades of Hollywood "entertainment/propaganda/training films" showing illegal machine guns being used well over 50% (and often much higher percentage) of the time, in crimes.

Machine guns are impressive, they are dramatic, they look good on the big screen, but they are not magic death rays that will wipe out entire city blocks just by pointing and pulling a trigger.

[dr.j]

Have there been any major technological advancements in FA weapons since 1986, or are they pretty much the same.

I know there has to be something, but I don't really know enough about them to know when certain things were invented.

If there have been some big advancements, don't people have a right to have the safest and best FA weapons if they are going to have them at all? Any gun over 20 years old is almost an antique right? Eventually (might take a long time) none of these old guns are going to work and then what? It won't matter if they are legal if they don't shoot.

Is there any way that new guns can legally sneak there way through the registry?

[Wildalaska]

Machine guns are impressive, they are dramatic, they look good on the big screen, but they are not magic death rays that will wipe out entire city blocks just by pointing and pulling a trigger.

really...so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?



WildillpassAlaska TM

[Socrates]

Same logic keeps full auto weapons out of former military armours hands...

[alloy]

using criminal behavior to rationalize the reduction of presently held, or previous freedoms, will have calibers over 22lr and shotguns that hold more than two taken away. kooks on a plane with box cutters, and a-holes like timothy mcveigh, or even loons like chai vang and dahlmer gone totally insane prove time and time that its just in the makeup, it isnt the weaponry. stopping belt feds wont stop liquor store hold ups and dope dealing, and some old fool driving a chevy thru a crowd on a sidewalk is no reason to outlaw station wagons. human behavior is unpredictable, but one thing you can predict is the resourcefulness of the black market to provide whatever is outlawed to whoever wants to pay. make it illegal, it will be available because you cant put the toothpaste back in the tube.
*see war on drugs and prohibition.

as to the right to bear or whatever...having gone thru a revolution, i think they meant whatever it takes to equalize the situation between victim and threat. otherwise toothpicks and lead pipes would be the only protected armament. no...they meant whatever is needed to deal with XYZ situation adequately. outlaw short barreled shotguns, but make sure all hacksaws disappear too, or you havent done much.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Alloy,

Actually I do not worry that much about criminals having the weapons as much as I worry about regular civilians owning very lethal and destructive military weapons that they have no training with, and no accountability for until after the fact. FA and other military weapons are more lethal and indiscriminate than weapons in common use by civilians. They were designed for military combat and not the situations faced by civilians in SD events. They are unsuitable I believe for the SD purpose that I think the 2A addresses in the operative clause "keep and bear".

I think the decision in Heller shows that lines may be drawn about what type of arms civilians may have, who may have them and where they may take them. The line has been drawn with the NFA and 1986 FOPA and has withstood constitutional challenge. Webleymkv posted a thread that we (and many others) engaged in last summer. I don't want to rehash it either (I felt like a Spartan at Thermopolye!:eek:) but there is no judicial or public support (other than a few in the gun culture)for allowing civilians unrestricted access to military weapons. I think lines have to be drawn concerning weapons and arms and this is one of them that is unlikely to change. The 2A like all the BORs has limits and this is one of them.

[Socrates]

I live in the PRK, the logical extension of TG's position. No ruger .380's no cheap guns, no AR-15's with removeable mags, no .50's, etc.

ONLY LEO's or former LEO's are to be trusted with such weapons....

I guess, with a Juris Doctrate degree in Law, a year in the D.A.'s office, I'm not trustworthy with full auto.:barf:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is part of the great continuum debate of what weapons are allowed the civilian or do basic rights give you access to all. We've done this before.

So if you think there is some line - where should it be? Full auto seems to be a reasonable bright line for some. No way - or - should it be a bright line that has some allowed - like Socrates.

I think, repeating, that the current NFA system with new guns allowed is a good solution. A closer look and a touch of a price barrier to the causal purchaser.

Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned? Is there a continuum or no.

We are back at the same point. No restrictions or some and then where. CA shows you a system that is too, too rigid. Most states get along without such a line.

[Wildalaska]

Nobody has adressed my rhetorical question above

WildimbummedAlaska ™

[alloy]

i didnt, because:

law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13

A:law abiding is one type of person
B:never been arrested(in your context) is something totally different
C:a member of MS13 is most likely viewed similar to an OMG member by the feds where simple membership gives that person a different legal status than either A or B above, as they try to apply rico...rendering the actions of a Cali member, to a criminal organization, which renders a member in Conn guilty by association.

basically it looks like a trap to promote a circular logic post-a-thon where the answer is run up and down the court all day, and i was off to chucky cheese's.

ooops i forgot, you have most likely sold firearms, knowingly(A) or unknowingly(B,C)...to type A, B, and, C.
so really...whats the question?

[nate45]

A closer look and a touch of a price barrier to the causal purchaser.

Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned? Is there a continuum or no.

It sounds like a good compromise and a worthy goal. We seek to get the '86 ban lifted and the '34 rules remain in place. That way we can bring on board those who are concerned that FA weapons may fall into the wrong hands.

[longrifles, Inc]

I've said this a number of different ways now on various forums when subjects like this pop up.


We all listened to politicians rally around the cause with catch phrases during the aftermath of 9-11-2001 as they described America and its citizens as "hard working, patriotic, dedicated, honorable, moral, family loving, yada, yada, yada. . ."

A dark plume from the odor of eagle **** and apple pie lingered over DC for weeks as they went on and on about it like a Sunday morning evangelist.

But yet we can't buy a machine gun or any other destructive device the way we buy cigarettes and booze because we aren't trustworthy. (***??) Since the government thrives on statistics lets compare tobacco, alcohol, and firearms deaths and see where that leads us.

Kind of a mixed message I think.

There are so many laws on the books for dealing with criminals already, why the redundant math? Life in prison vs 140 year sentence is still life unless your Jesus or a superhero and I feel pretty good about saying neither of the two are going to be doing liquor store hold ups with an illegally modified Uzi anytime soon.

These people (elected officials) that perpetuate this crap are windsocks and opportunists. They need to be shown the door.

Know why silencers became a controlled item? It was right after the depression and "they" were worried about people poaching. That's how it was sold folks and now you are taxed an additional $200 bucks and fingerprinted for the privilege. Name another amendment dealing with personal rights subject to taxation and fingerprints?

All this just so you don't go bugging the neighbors or needing to wear ear plugs when you shoot your gun.

I think these kinds of laws go against the very grain on which this country was founded and they should be abolished.

[zukiphile]

Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned?

If you can obtain anthrax bacteria elsewhere, why a particular concern involved in obtaining it at a gunshow?

WildimbummedAlaska

No one wants that!

really...so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?


MS13 is a continuing criminal enterprise, so its member is arguably excluded from the law abiding population even if not yet arrested. Presumably, you would have a "problem" selling that sort of person a single shot rifle, so the question doesn't bear particularly on the FA issue.

Your question goes to whether you regard ownership and possession of arms as a right, or whether is a privilege only to be extended to the sort of people you like. If it is the latter, your analytical framework is precisely the same as Sarah Brady's, but your conclusion is more liberal and less restrictive.

I have "problems" with the way some people use their right to vote, but I wouldn't consider abridging the right for that reason a good exercise of law.


Longrifles, I am not personally invested in the full-auto issue (I just do not find them interesting), but I have a more visceral reaction to taxing or prohibiting sound suppression units. Hearing loss is a real danger; shouldn't a safety nanny mandate that all new arms be sold with a safety lock AND suppressor?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

a member of MS13 is most likely viewed similar to an OMG member by the feds where simple membership gives that person a different legal status than either A or B above, as they try to apply rico...rendering the actions of a Cali member, to a criminal organization, which renders a member in Conn guilty by association.

Are you saying that by merely being a member of MS13 puts you in the same category as a convicted felon? No trial or conviction needed just association? Does the FBI enter MS13 members who have not been convicted of a crime into NICS and therefore prohibit them from legally buying firearms? Doesn't seem constitutional to my laymen's mind.

So if you think there is some line - where should it be? Full auto seems to be a reasonable bright line for some. No way - or - should it be a bright line that has some allowed - like Socrates.

So where is the line? I don't think too many have answered that one.

[Wildalaska]

MS13 is a continuing criminal enterprise, so its member is arguably excluded from the law abiding population even if not yet arrested. Presumably, you would have a "problem" selling that sort of person a single shot rifle, so the question doesn't bear particularly on the FA issue.

So associations count?:D

WildanswercarefullyAlaska ™

[alloy]

It is what it is...but to not speculate on my part Tennessee Gentleman....

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/gangtecc/

[Wildalaska]

Today MS13, tomorrow, GOA!

WildipsofactoAlaska ™

[alloy]

and... http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/ngic/violent_gangs.htm

[Tennessee Gentleman]

alloy,

Maybe I am not reading this well but I see nothing in either of those links that say mere membership in any gang makes it illegal for those members to purchase firearms or lose any other civil rights. Maybe you could quote where it says that. I know that LE Agencies target gangs but until they break the law they are not felons and can legally buy firearms if they are old enough.

So, back to Ken's original question: so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links? since we have not shown that mere membership in MS13 is a disqualifier to legally purchasing firearms.

[alloy]

are you asking if gang membership makes it illegal to purchase a gun? i wouldn't know. will it stop a purchase on a background check? i wouldnt know that either. would the atf know that a person is a member, simply because they keep files on members, and yet allow the sale to go thru is something i couldnt answer, i have never had a seat behind the mans computer, or seen how info is collated or used internally by a government agency like the atf. maybe they will let the sale of ma duece go right on thru even someone is on file as a member. are you suspecting that they will?

[Wildalaska]

Stop spinning and answer the question:

Would you have any problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?

WildsimplequestionAlaska ™

[Socrates]

The cost of freedom. So what? If they want machine guns, they are going to get them from somewhere.
Are you saying that by merely being a member of MS13 puts you in the same category as a convicted felon? No trial or conviction needed just association? Does the FBI enter MS13 members who have not been convicted of a crime into NICS and therefore prohibit them from legally buying firearms? Doesn't seem constitutional to my laymen's mind.
This is a typical strawman that is used by the Brady Bunch, and their ilk, to limit our freedoms. This is how we start down the slope...

And, since I'm not likely to be one of their targets, I want to be able to walk in, buy a Barett and a Ma Duece, and, have it set up ready if they do come a calling.

During the Rodney King riots, the LAPD and Fire pulled out, and left people to their own devices. The rich folks setup blockades around their neighborhoods and used armed guards to limit access to the areas. In such situations, I'd love to be able to bring out a Ma Duece to stop a caravan of cars from entering a blockaded area.

[alloy]

there you go again calling law abiding, and never been arrested the same thing. where i live, law abiding means you dont break the law. never been arrested means you either havent been caught or you dont break the law. i really dont think being arrested is even a consideration, i thought it was the actual CONVICTION that was the criteria. misdemeaner convictions with applicable sentences(that have or havent been applied) or...a felonious conviction. you seem to think folks that havent been caught, equal folks that abide by the law and to top it off, members of known criminal organizations somehow belong to both groups or either or neither, depending on which way the wind blows.

if it would be best, we can all go around picking and choosing who does, and doesnt get a gun based on what ifs and hunches and personal preference if you think we should.

learn the difference, and ill stop spinning. but the answer is: law abiding, means LAW ABIDING. so its fine with me, sell it to him. he is law abiding, right? so whats the worry? he has broke no laws in the past and has no intention to break any in the future*. but its your hypothetical person, his hypothetical moral status, and hypothetical machine gun, not mine, and its all based on his hypothetical intentions(based on association), right? and like every other customer that buys a firearm from Joe tomorrow...his paperwork is all in order.
*law abiding.

you see...this is your moral dilemma as a purveyor of fine instruments of precision, not mine to worry about. if not selling to someone in particular makes you feel better, go for it. if you dont want to sell him a barrett, ok. my worry is that you might eventually want to carry the safety net over to others that dont fit a mold, or the gun just isnt right, once the FA option is off the table. who, or what...will be next position on the totem pole of the unsafe? there is always a next.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

alloy,
I think what Ken is saying is that lacking a conviction on their record a member of MS13 or any other gang can legally buy a gun. So, if all FA weapons are unrestricted (requiring only a NICS check) then such a person might walk into Walmart and buy one.

Right now it would be a bit more difficult for that to happen.

maybe they will let the sale of ma duece go right on thru even someone is on file as a member. are you suspecting that they will?

Under current law I think the answer is yes. I don't think NICS lists members of gangs and it is not to my knowledge a prohibited class.

Don't know for sure but I don't think many gangs have .50 M2 Machine guns. They are difficult to get even legally but would not be if the NFA were repealed. That is the issue.

[alloy]

i consider it irrelevant. the pointing of the weapon is the crime to avoid and/or punish. i dont care if its a derringer in my gut, a mossberg pump from across the room, or a barrett from 1/2 mile away. and that includes a brand new post ban 2009 civilian FA squad automatic weapon. they are all the same to me, and the reduction of the right of ownership of any of them or continued prohibition, is a loss. personally i dont want one, or i would have bought one already, but i still cant make those distinctions for others who might want to own one.

[44 AMP]

Sure, we all don't want to see obvious criminal types buying guns, but as the "law abiding" citizens we pride ourselves on being, we must follow the law.

And the law says, not prohibited unless convicted. So, as to the question about the MS13 member (with no conviction), and ther M2, you might prefer to refuse the sale because of personal reasons (where legal), or because he isn't wearing a shirt, or because he doesn't have valid ID, or any number of valid legal reasons. But if they haven't been convicted, the law doesn't deny them, or us.

So, while selling to an apparent "shady" character doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, if they meet the legal requirements, who are we to judge them guilty when the law does not?

My personal feelings on the matter are that anyone who has not been convicted should be able to buy anything, without other restrictions. If/when they commit a crime (with the weapon), then they should, upon conviction, be speedily put to death. For aggravated circumstances, a painful, slow death.

But that is not the law of our land. So, until I am King, I am going to follow what is the law, even if I disagree or are uncomfortable with parts of it.

Doesn't mean I'm not going to try and get the existing law changed, if I can. But until changed, we are stuck with what we have.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, if the NFA went away I think it might become relevant. Nevertheless, I repeat Ken's & Glenn's question: Where would you draw the line? At what point would you say certain types of arms should be regulated or banned?

[alloy]

respectfully, i already answered that many posts ago. the toothpaste is out of the tube and regulations should allow legit civilians to possess a weaponry to adequately put down the threat, be it MS13 or an invading XYZ. whatever the writers saw as the intended scope of protected civilian weaponry...having been thru a revolution...i am confident that they meant weapons at least equal to the threat. otherwise they meant toothpicks and lead pipes. FA is in the hands of whomever you choose to example, and that was not my doing...it was a step by step, forseeable, logical progression of their intent. but my right to protect or bear(if its truely a right...as opposed to priviledge)...has to equal the aggression its designed to counteract or it is nothing. i believe this was particularily fresh in the founders thoughts.
now the courts can, and have, and will, decide something differently and tell me that i am wrong and i have no problem with the law of the land....it will change frequently to and fro, but to me thats just legal wrangling down the slippery slope away from the intent, and i dont have to vote for it, or approve. only compliance is mandatory.

[alloy]

frankly...the fact that a rancher in laredo cant get a new operable weapon and some training for a reasonable cost, seems slightly less than adequate, unless we are to assume los zetas is becoming pacifistic or the government has it all firmly under control. yes, i would give him a SAW if my vote had that power.
in all seriousness tho...enjoy the day deciding his hypothetical fate, the ice has melted and so its back to chucky cheese for some more greasy fries!:)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Is the brightline something like when the offensive, mass casuality utility of the weapon exceeds the reasonable scenario defensive capability of the weapon? Is this a view you accept or are all weapons acceptable.

So, I see myself as a reasonable person being well served by up to and including my semi-auto AR. I don't see a reasonable probability of needing the M2 for defensive use - although it would be fun to have (couldn't afford to run it). So if I have such - then its ease of purchase would be restricted under the NFA rules with an altered provision for new manufacture or post '86 (is that the right year) guns.

I do, as I said above and some like Ken have argued, see a higher probability that easy access to fully auto weapons will lead to a short time to crime period before they show up in gang killings and rampages.

Thus, the semiauto AR-ish bright line. Note this is accepting that 'rights' are subject to limitations. We accept such on other rights. The right to publish kiddie **** made with real kids is not accepted, etc. If you are absolutist on the word 'arms' - then Colt should sell anthrax sprayers at the gun show?

You have limits or you don't.

[zukiphile]

You have limits or you don't.

Glenn, this doesn't seem an apt summary of the issue.

If the limit placed on a right is not articulated, reasoned and plausible, it is fair to question whether the limitation is principled.

[Wildalaska]

If the limit placed on a right is not articulated, reasoned and plausible, it is fair to question whether the limitation is principled.

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?

WildgoodcommentglennAlaska ™

[zukiphile]

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms ...

That is an interesting construction. Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?


I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.

Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. We know that the services also use semi-automatic weapons.

Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.

But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.


If the limitation you propose reduces to I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes. In that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.

[nate45]

If the limitation you propose reduces to I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes.

I can't wait to see what bit of logic and reason is used to try and refute this brilliant statement.

[Wildalaska]

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?


Fair question, but you are not considering the context of the discussion. If you do so, the question need not be asked and is irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand.

I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.


Thats begs the issue of what we are discussing.

Focus in terms of the NFA.

But to address your points:

Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. .

really? Military members receive training and a background check. Thier use of such arms is strictly controlled. They are not entitled to possess said arms except in course of their official duties. Therefore, unless civilians have the same restraints, that objection is principled

Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.

LOL. Surely you are not contending that a belt fed is less lethal than a shotgun are you? Somehow I don't recall massed remington 870s on the Somme instead of Maxim 08s.

In point of fact, the increased lethality of the FA weapon makes an objection to same reasonable.

But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.

Reductio ad absurdum

n that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.

I hereby set forth the new construct of Godwins Law, to be herein called WAs Rule of Gun Board Debate:

"As a gunboard politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Brady approaches one"

Reductio ad Brady. You lose.

WildsoemoneneedstogetmeintowikpediasoihavesomelegacyAlaska ™

[zukiphile]

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

Fair question, but you are not considering the context of the discussion. If you do so, the question need not be asked and is irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand.


If it is a fair question, you should be able to answer it. If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly. No question "needs to be asked", but you raise the issue of your own opinions when you offer them, so it is plainly relevant to the issue of your opinions.

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.

Thats begs the issue of what we are discussing.


No. It addresses your question, which was,

Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?


and posited "the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms " without any stated limitation.

Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. .
really? Military members receive training and a background check. Thier use of such arms is strictly controlled. They are not entitled to possess said arms except in course of their official duties. Therefore, unless civilians have the same restraints, that objection is principled



That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.

Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms.

Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.
LOL. Surely you are not contending that a belt fed is less lethal than a shotgun are you? Somehow I don't recall massed remington 870s on the Somme instead of Maxim 08s.

In point of fact, the increased lethality of the FA weapon makes an objection to same reasonable.


This contains a couple of conspicuous problems. First, shotguns are grossly lethal and used by use soldiers in WWI to the consternation of those against whom they were used. Second, it entirely misses the implicit premise of the proposed restriction, which is that automatic fire is unaimed or unaimable fire. Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms. Any bolt action 30-06 will leave the recipient just as dead, and a .50bmg rifle is more lethal than any of the above, yet is not particularly restricted.

But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.
Reductio ad absurdum



Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.

In that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.
I hereby set forth the new construct of Godwins Law, to be herein called WAs Rule of Gun Board Debate:

"As a gunboard politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Brady approaches one"

Reductio ad Brady. You lose.


Since the specific subforum rules discourage puerile bickering, I will allow others to give your conclusions about who loses due consideration. The histrionic reductio ad brady accusation misses the fact that the difference in your conclusion is noted, even though you share an analytical framework.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms

Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction? Or is it that of a FA vs. a shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle?

That leads again to the argument that WMDs are ok for the general public. If you say NO - then you are arguing the specifics of FA vs the others and doesn't that become a matter of risk analysis and empirical evidence as compared to some absolute principle?

As far as the Brady business - that was introduced as an argument accusing folks of arguing for some FA restrictions of sorta being Brady-ites. We see it all the time on lists - not a true believer, you are a BRADY. Let's let it pass for the moment for the theoretical. Are there limits?

[zukiphile]

Glenn, if you don't mind, I would address these out of order.

As far as the Brady business - that was introduced as an argument accusing folks of arguing for some FA restrictions of sorta being Brady-ites. We see it all the time on lists - not a true believer, you are a BRADY. Let's let it pass for the moment for the theoretical.

My assertion isn't that any individual here is a brady supporter. It is that the brady analysis appears to be to determine who should have what according to their preferences, and argue those prefered restrictions as a basis for law. It is likely that most here would find Brady's conclusions wrong, but to use the same analysis to come to a different conclusion is an improvement of degree, not kind.

I confess that I don't always find Ken's style clear (as he may not find mine) but if the contention is that I've tried to end the discussion by calling him a Brady supporter, that is a strawman.

Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms
Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction? Or is it that of a FA vs. a shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle?


I was specifically addressing the latter. On the whole, a FA 10/22 might be less lethal than a 50bmg rifle. Tennesse Gentleman argues that FA is most useful for suppression fire; this does not indicate lethality.

The core problem of the lethality test when applied to firearms is that nearly all of them are lethal. Adopting a lethality test for banning or restriction legitimises a test that is used elsewhere to justify draconian restrictions.

That leads again to the argument that WMDs are ok for the general public. If you say NO - then you are arguing the specifics of FA vs the others and doesn't that become a matter of risk analysis and empirical evidence as compared to some absolute principle?


Only if you assume that there is no pertinent different between a "WMD" and a firearm.

And just to be clear, I am not pressing anyone for absolutes. I am noting that a restriction not based on an articulated, reasonable and plausible principle may be literally unprincipled.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

i am confident that they meant weapons at least equal to the threat.

Might agree here. However, since I believe the threat to we civilians lie within the confines of current civilian criminal activity then the current arms currently in common use are suffcient to meet that threat and therefore pass the test you propose the 2A founders imagined. Invasion by foreign armies (virtually unlikely since we possess nuclear arms) would be opposed by our professional standing Army and resistance to tyranny opposed by the vote so I guess the NFA stands.

Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction?

Absolutely Glenn, unless we digress into the inane argument that a shovel is just as lethal as a .50 cal machinegun, lethality and dangerousness of the weapon is a reasonable basis for restriction. We routinely restrict and regulate things such as explosives and the 2A provides no cover for military arms IMO. The reason that the military uses these arms is because they are designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly or to attack other weapons systems such as tanks or aircraft.

[Wildalaska]

If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly.

Au contraire, my personal opinion, assuming same is unsatisfactory to you, would form the basis for further ad hominem on your part. Thus it is irrelvant to the issue at hand, and diverts from critically thinking about the question.

That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.

That does nothing more than spin the argument or evidence a lack of understanding of same. You raised the lack of merit of the comparison, now that that has been answered, you aren't happy with the result. And pray tell, what civil rights do service members lose?

Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms.


I see...so you are the definer of the term "principled"? Ok are you using in the philosophic sense or the dictionary sense? And how does that effect your post hoc ergo hoc statement above.

Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms.

Really? Inherent lethality of an item on a mass basis is not principled or reasonable within a constitutional framework where such restrictions would undoubtably pass muster? Are you familiar with the NFA?

Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.

You confuse the rhetorical question with a postition. Further, assuming it is a position does not mean one should take it out of context in uno vis a vis looking at it in omnibus

The histrionic reductio ad brady accusation

really? Histrionic? :)

WildfolkshateitwhentheygetcaughtinwaslawAlaska ™

[Wildalaska]

but if the contention is that I've tried to end the discussion by calling him a Brady supporter, that is a strawman.

Please review the adjuncts to Godwins Law, I don't think WAs law has yet been so interpreted

WildthelawisthelawAlaska ™

[zukiphile]

If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly. Au contraire, my personal opinion, assuming same is unsatisfactory to you, would form the basis for further ad hominem on your part. Thus it is irrelvant to the issue at hand, and diverts from critically thinking about the question.


Because evading questions aids critical thinking, right?

You are putting a lot of effort into not answering a direct question about your own writing just because you regard the effect of stating your opinion with apprehension.

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.
That does nothing more than spin the argument or evidence a lack of understanding of same. You raised the lack of merit of the comparison, now that that has been answered, you aren't happy with the result. And pray tell, what civil rights do service members lose?


If you believe that meeting identification of your fallacy with "But you're spinning the argument" is not puerile bickering, then feel free to stick with that.

I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member?

Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms. I see...so you are the definer of the term "principled"? Ok are you using in the philosophic sense or the dictionary sense? And how does that effect your post hoc ergo hoc statement above.


I don't believe you "see". I have explained in the now italised text why that cannot be the principle behind a FA restriction.

I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.

Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms.
Really? Inherent lethality of an item on a mass basis is not principled or reasonable within a constitutional framework where such restrictions would undoubtably pass muster? Are you familiar with the NFA?


Yes. I am also familiar with the difference between being able to pass a constitutional test and being the product of a plausible, reasonable principle.

Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.
You confuse the rhetorical question with a postition.

No. Because the question was rhetorical, a reasonable reader can infer the position that inspires it. If that is not your position, feel free to indicate that.

Absolutely Glenn, unless we digress into the inane argument that a shovel is just as lethal as a .50 cal machinegun, lethality and dangerousness of the weapon is a reasonable basis for restriction.

Beyond noting that this leg of the conversation doesn't involve either, I make two observations. First, you may consider "lethality" to be a principle upon which a restriction should be based, but would have to admit that a bus or a 50bmg rifle are each likely more dangerous/lethal than a FA 10/22.

Second and more fundamentally, "lethality" and "dangerousness" are very closely related to "efficacy". That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.

[Wildalaska]

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

You are free to bicker all that you want. The word means what it means in the context of constitutional law and this discussion and my personal feelings again, have no bearing on the argument, one way or another.

I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member?

LOL, how predicatable....OK, Yes. And would be subject to the same discipline that any employer would impose on an employee.

By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit?


I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning does not require both


Because the question was rhetorical, a reasonable reader can infer the position that inspires it.

Inference based on bald words requires reference to ones own prejudices. here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient. You thus will be unable to make the critical judgements necessary for this discussion. Thats OK, but it does not add to what we are attempting to accomplish here.

WildwemustallputthegunwoobieasideforthisthreeadAlaska ™

[Wildalaska]

That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.

Again post hoc ergo propter hoc, plus historically, sociologically, economically and politically incorrect (all in combination)

WildperhapsyouwishmetoexpoundAlaska ™

[Konrad]

As this conversation has evolved, I have expanded my thinking on my original subject and now I am amending my first post to include this new question. I include this to attempt to bring my point into focus.

What do we NEED Semi Auto for?

I asked myself this question and realized that I couldn't come up with a specific answer.

The answer is, we don't NEED it, we WANT it, yet we are allowed to have Semi Auto.This is important to note, because it speaks to the reason why we have the 2nd A.. If we can identify WHY we NEED SA, then the issue of "Are we entitled to easier FA access" becomes much easier.

As I opined in an earlier post, there are only so many reasons that could have existed in the minds of the founding fathers for inserting the 2nd A. Since we all have different theories about the context of the 2nd A. and why the FF inserted it into the US Const. the only way to gather consensus is to put all the issues into a group and agree that these issues are ALL the possible reasons why the 2nd A. was inserted.

Then once those reason are compiled, we need to ask "Do we need Semi Auto for this?"

First, lets look to the reasons for 2nd A. insertion:


1. Sporting/Hunting - This category includes target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting and similar.

Is Semi Auto NEEDED? The answer is "no". Manually cycled actions can be used (even preferred) for many target shooting events. Pump action shotguns are great for clay pigeons and revolvers can be used for anything requiring higher ROF.

2. Self defense from non-governmental aggressors (I.e. criminals) - Most would agree that a shotgun is a very effective self defense tool for the home, office or vehicle. Revolvers are still favored by many over semi autos for their reliability in a CCW situation. Thus, making a case for NEEDING a semi auto in the SD category is possible, but the argument is not strong.

As I see it, the best argument is the incredibly poor accuracy that afflicts most shooters in a real, life and death situation. Thus, for most citizens, having the ability to "Shoot till the target is hit" could provide some argument for the need for higher capacity semi autos. Still, some wheel guns can hold 8 rounds (Equivalent to some single stack Semi Autos).

3. Deterrence against governmental aggressors (Foreign or domestic). - This is of course the "Insurrectionist" theory. I.e. that the founding fathers intended the 2nd A. to be a last line of defense against an encroaching domestic government OR a compliment/supplement to the existing (small) standing army against a foreign force.

IF this (reason #3) was at least ONE of the reasons for 2nd A. insertion, then the argument for civilian ownership of Semi Auto becomes very strong.

Here is why this is so critically relevant; If the 3rd theory is accepted as being at least ONE of the reasons for 2nd A. insertion then the reason for civilian firearms ownership is to deter GOVERNMENT FORCES (Again, domestic or foreign).

To be an effective deterrent against government forces, the civilian force should have weapons that are capable of being a sufficient deterrent to government forces. Many government forces have full auto. If full auto is superior in any form to semi auto, then the government would only be deterred by civilians possessing full auto. (Hit rate aside, the ROF is superior to semis)

Hence, if the 3rd theory is correct, then full auto would be fully protected by the 2nd A.

If FA is fully protected by the 2nd A. then the strict limitations imposed upon its ownership might be unlawful. I.e. unconstitutional in the same way as the D.C. firearms regulations were deemed unlawful. (I.e. not officially prohibiting them, but making it so difficult that ownership was severely limited).

In addition, the issue of whether the FA guns are "More likely" to cause more or more severe collateral damage is not truly relevant. Not because its not important (No one wants collateral damage) but because, the issue isn't about collateral damage.

The issue is whether we as American Citizens are ENTITLED TO OWN FA in much the same way as we own Semi Auto guns now under the 2nd A. (I know, it is possible to own FA).

Hence, "More lethal, less lethal", or "trained or not trained", "accurate or less accurate" is as relevant to FA as it is to SA. In other words, its not relevant to legal civilian ownership.

(Ex. you walk into your local gun shop and ask to buy that new Mini 14 hanging on the wall. The gun shop does not ask you if you are trained to use a semi auto, given the increased ROF and the fact that it is capable of firing many rounds quickly.)

I mean this with ALL POSSIBLE RESPECT for all of you. You are all obviously quite intelligent and undoubtedly many of you have much more experience, wisdom and perhaps even knowledge than myself. That said, I am not afraid being proved wrong, but I am equally unafraid to stand firm when I am convinced I am correct.

For me this academic, not personal and I know you all probably feel the same way.

Best regards,

Konrad

[zukiphile]

That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.
Again post hoc ergo propter hoc, plus historically, sociologically, economically and politically incorrect (all in combination)

WildperhapsyouwishmetoexpoundAlaska ™

Please do.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Ken,

One of the issues I have seen brought before on the FA debate is that prior to the 1934 NFA there seemed to be no problem with FA/Military arms being owned by private citizens.

However, that begs the question of whether many if any civilians owned FA for reasons other than curiosity/hobbying reasons. I have no figures for this but I reason that the main if not sole users of FA weapons outside the police of military were criminals and that is why the NFA passed without much resistance. I don't think many civilians owned them due to 1) cost 2) unsuitability for hunting or sport 3) wasted ammo.

I know Thompson tried to market them to civilian farmers but it failed. Seems clear that these weapons were designed for military application and not civilian self-defense. Plus they had really only been available at all for about twenty or thirty years.

[zukiphile]

The word means what it means in the context of constitutional law and this discussion and my personal feelings again, have no bearing on the argument, one way or another.


Except inasmuch as you offer them into the argument.

By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit?


No, I am explaining to you that military restrictions on its personnel do not describe the limits of a civilian's constitutional rights.

I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning does not require both


Ken, indeed it does. That's why "ergo propter" is in there; that conflation is why it is a fallacy.

here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient.

That is incorrect.

[Wildalaska]

One of the issues I have seen brought before on the FA debate is that prior to the 1934 NFA there seemed to be no problem with FA/Military arms being owned by private citizens.

However, that begs the question of whether many if any civilians owned FA for reasons other than curiosity/hobbying reasons. I have no figures for this but I reason that the main if not sole users of FA weapons outside the police of military were criminals and that is why the NFA passed without much resistance. I don't think many civilians owned them due to 1) cost 2) unsuitability for hunting or sport 3) wasted ammo.

I know Thompson tried to market them to civilian farmers but it failed. Seems clear that these weapons were designed for military application and not civilian self-defense. Plus they had really only been available at all for about twenty or thirty years.

Good point TG, that was close to what I was going to expound. IIRC, subguns werent even in common existence till 1918 and by the time they were commercially offered, they immediately became "crime guns"....

Now couple economic distress with the evolution of the powers of the Fed Goverment and one can see why it took 20 years to address the problems of FA, done in a rather interesting way I may add.

Except inasmuch as you offer them into the argument.

Then again, I'm not the one who violated WAs law:p

WildnorresortedtorepeatedadhominemsAlaska ™

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Deterrence against governmental aggressors (Foreign or domestic). - This is of course the "Insurrectionist" theory. I.e. that the founding fathers intended the 2nd A. to be a last line of defense against an encroaching domestic government OR a compliment/supplement to the existing (small) standing army against a foreign force.

Konrad, the second amendment has two parts. The militia was meant to be the defense against insurrection and foreign invasion. Heller determined that our right to personal self defense is not tied to militia service. Today, the US Military (not really envisioned by our founders but necessary in today's world) serves as the defender against foreign enemies while our police forces defend us from unlawful insurrection.

As I have stated before the Insurrectionist Theory cannot hold water against Article One Section Eight or Article Three Section Three of the COTUS. So, the use of the your reason number three would not make FA constitutionally protected against regulations like the NFA. Would any interpretation of the 2A make sense to say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government? That would be a suicide clause would it not?

Here is a quote:The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

Those free elections maintain our freedoms and not unorganized armed civilians.

[zukiphile]

Then again, I'm not the one who violated WAs law

WildnorresortedtorepeatedadhominemsAlaska ™

Ken, at no time have I attacked you personally for the purpose of discrediting an argument you make. That would be an ad hominem argument.

I find a problem with a purely prudential argument against an explicit right. That is not an attack on you personally.

[Wildalaska]

That is not an attack on you personally.

responding further to that, while providing examples, would entail puerile bickering. The thread speaks for itself.

And perhaps you would care to comment on the brief historical background of Federal FA controls set forth above?

WildtgraisedaninterestingpointbythewayAlaska ™

[Socrates]

When you consider who was in power when all these bans on full auto where put in place, FDR, and, considering the actions similar to what has just happened, with a Demo Congress, and, a Socialist leaning president, who seems to be taking lessons from Clinton and FDR, it perhaps proper to redress this issue.

Given the makeup, and the actions taken by the same group in the FDR and Clinton administrations, we are likely to see all kinds of attacks with one goal, take away the people's right to bear arms, and protect themselves, and, to protect Congress from the backlash of giving 800 Billion dollars to a bunch of their rich friends.

This is the first step to allow the government to take everything, which, in the current bank bail out is the real potential danger, government ownership of banks, property, etc.

One thing that is abundantly clear is we cannot protect ourselves from terrorist groups without being similarly armed. No police force can even protect us in such situations as the L.A. riots, how are they going to protect us against an organized terrorist group?

The absurd notion that a police force is capable of dealing with even the current gangs we have, armed as they are, and their sheer numbers is likewise absurd. What did the L.A. police and fire do when confronted with this situation?
They pulled out, and 'protected and served' their tails, right out of the fight.

I think the current huge run on firearms and ammunition is in anticipation of a situation much like the times the FA ban was put in place. In other words, a time when we lost incredible freedoms, and, the Constitution was erroded, as FDR expanded the Federal government to a point far beyond anything the founders imagined. We still suffer from those agencies, and policies, and, it will continue, and get worse.

I suspect, from the ammo and gun sales of record amounts, that I am not the only person that feels that that will happen, nor the only one that thinks firearms are the only way to protect ones self from such events.

[longrifles, Inc]

Longrifles, I am not personally invested in the full-auto issue (I just do not find them interesting), but I have a more visceral reaction to taxing or prohibiting sound suppression units. Hearing loss is a real danger; shouldn't a safety nanny mandate that all new arms be sold with a safety lock AND suppressor?

So there's no misunderstanding. I have no interest in FA firearms beyond my job requirements here in "Gaghdad". Once I get home from this toilet my sincerest hopes are that I never have to work on one again. They are heavy, hot, smelly, oily, and loud. Kind of like the women that tend to lurk in every small town dive.

I find long legged bolt guns much more interesting.

Be that as it may there are those who are drawn to the idea of slinging as much lead as possible and God bless em for feeling that way. I am in no position to judge and I firmly believe it is an individual right that should not be regulated to the extent that it is.

If you insist on background checks ok fine. I can see where there is some benefit to the general public in doing so. However being at the mercy of the local sheriffs good nature is crap. A guy I work with here in Baghdad is dealing with that right now. Never committed a crime in his life yet the sheriff in his home town back in NC won't sign his papers for the short barreled M-4 that he's buying. He's trustworthy enough to carry a sec clearance here and guard the US Embassy in the most dangerous city on earth but he can't own an M-4 with a 10" barrel???

That my friends is bull****.

Here's the parts that really fry my ass:

Taxation
Banned sales of newly manufactured FA guns to the general public.
Being forced to relent to compliance inspections
Being a felon if a rifle is less than a specified length yet I can buy/own a pistol that will fit inside a belt buckle. (*** is up with that?)

The million dollar question:

What is the catalyst that will get us all to rally around the cause? What will drive us all to act and get these ridiculous laws reformed? I wish like hell I knew. Maybe if we all took Viagra right before we went to the range or something. I don't know, but I wish I did.

Six years in the Marines defending the Constitution. This is NOT what I had in mind when I did it.

[alloy]

Thus, the semiauto AR-ish bright line. Note this is accepting that 'rights' are subject to limitations. We accept such on other rights. The right to publish kiddie **** made with real kids is not accepted, etc. If you are absolutist on the word 'arms' - then Colt should sell anthrax sprayers at the gun show?

You have limits or you don't.

with regards to anthrax and/or wmd, no i dont believe civilians need access, but they arent what i consider firearms...even if they were propelled out of the barrel of a gun that is currently available. biological and or nuclear weapons are not what i consider firearms.
i also generally consider a rifle or shotgun to be adequate, i dont feel particularily threatened or fear an assault by multiple criminals with FA weapons. if i thought the threat was credible, i might change that. that is based on me and my surroundings, but...im not sure i can apply that to others in different circumstances, with different opinions on the matter.
do i have limits or not? i think a somewhat controlled access with recordkeeping, under the system in place currently that seems to be working, is my limit. but i think newly manufactured weapons would fit into the same system nicely.
firearms, not wmd or biological, is my limit.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

One thing that is abundantly clear is we cannot protect ourselves from terrorist groups without being similarly armed. No police force can even protect us in such situations as the L.A. riots, how are they going to protect us against an organized terrorist group?

Is that sort of threat realistic here in the USA? Are bands of terrorists and gangs launching wholesale attacks against law-abiding citizens backed by FA and rocket launchers/mortars? I do see that in Iraq and other third world countries where the rule of law is weak or non-existent, but here? Maybe I missed it on the news but if we say we need all military weapons necessary to counter a threat, shouldn't that threat be real or reasonably plausible and not just within the realm of improbable possibility? If not, shouldn't we be developing phasers for the coming martian invasion;)?

BTW, in the LA riot scenario you mention I would feel perfectly well-armed with any number of hunting rifles available to me without NFA restrictions. My understanding of looters and rioters and such is that once they hear and see the gunfire coming at them :eek:they skeedaddle! And it doesn't take a M2 to make that happen.

What is the catalyst that will get us all to rally around the cause? What will drive us all to act and get these ridiculous laws reformed?

Very good question and the ultimate answer to this debate. Maybe if what Socrates says comes true (bedlam in the streets) enough people will agitate for military weapons. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[Socrates]

I recently had to stay away from work, thanks to riots in Oakland. Seems a Bart cop got a black kid on the ground, at the Fruitvale Bart Station, and shot him in the back. The kid was asking at the time that the officer didn't tazer him. He died.

My work was in close proximity to both the areas with the riots, people running around burning stuff, and throwing rocks, destroying cars, and wrecking stores. Cops didn't catch them, only tried to contain.

If you check in another thread, the US Congress is now trying to ban imported firearms, with the excuse that we are the cause of the flow into Mexico.:rolleyes:

The truth is, we now have an oligarchy, and, we are going to end up just like the British are now, without the right to bear arms.

It's clear that our Congress no longer cares about our security, in our house or otherwise.

As to organized violence, all you have to do is look across the border. Tijuana and the border towns are rampant with crime, directed at American tourists, robbing and murdering, and organized kidnapping. It might seem strange, but, the police ARE the problem there, since they are the armed robbers, and, they are using their position to help the influx of drugs and illegals into the US.

[Wildalaska]

Socrates, I was going to respond to your posts, but since nothing you say is germane to the argument here, but is rather just a rehash of political invective, I must decline.:D

WildyouhavelimitsoryoudontisthequestionthatkeepsgettingavoidedAlaska ™

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ok - we are going nowhere.

To summarize for your own cogitation:

1. Are there any limits on weapons ownership?
2. Are there realistic usages of FA for defense by civilians beyond TEOTWAWKI? Or are they just for fun?
3. If we can get them - what would be reasonable procedures, if you believe in procedures?
4. Can we discuss such in #3, without the good ol' invective from various forms and quarters of true belief?

Thus, I'm closing us down for being nonproductive. Good discussion for the most part and we covered the major serious points before we drifted.