[Tennessee Gentleman]

Here is Mr. Hamblen's explanation of what he is trying to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTTYyO_8N9M

Based on that, I fear Mr. Hamblen is on shaky ground. In short, Mr Hamblen, a member of the volunteer Tennessee State Guard sought to arm those in his unit with full auto weapons because he felt they were inadequately armed. The mission of the Tennessee State Guard on their website is:

The purpose of the Tennessee State Guard is to provide a professional complement of personnel to support the State mission of the Tennessee National Guard, by assisting the Tennessee Army National Guard as a force multiplier, and at the direction of the Adjutant General, to assist civil authorities with disaster relief, humanitarian causes, ceremonial service, religious and medical support for the well being and safety of the citizenry of Tennessee.

So, from reading that I see a couple of problems with his position. First, I see nothing about this state guard being an armed force as Mr. Hamblen alleges, and furthermore they operate at the direction (read authority) of the Adjutant General.

If the AG felt that the need to arm them beyond what they already had then he would do so. That decision is not up to Mr. Hamblen to make as a subordinate commander. I would liken that prohibition to the one that active duty military have about carrying personally owned weapons during deployments.

So, as a TN Guard member I believe Mr. Hamblen exceeded his authority to equip his "troops" with privately owned weapons and such authority could only rest with the Governor and AG.

Now to maestro pistolero and 44 AMP's circular logic argument. If you are saying that full auto weapons were in common use (pre-NFA) by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and that was indeed true then you might have a point as to the argument being circular. However, I do not believe and see no evidence that they ever were in "common use" by anybody other than the military and they were restricted in 1934 because those outside the military who did commonly use them were criminals engaged in criminal activity. Because of our more affluent society today and their limited availability they are in greater demand but IMO mostly by gun enthusiasts and hobbyists.

I believe that when FA was unrestricted prior to 1934 by the government they were never in "common use" by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.

I disagree. I think Heller decoupled the supposed antigun relationship between private ownership of firearms from service in the militia (which no longer exists). Federal and State governments may indeed constitutionally restrict weapons that civilians may own if those restrictions pass court muster and the NFA has.