|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 9, 2013, 02:43 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
Quote:
|
|
January 9, 2013, 03:34 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
|
Quote:
This type of thinking is part of the problem. All or nothing idealism.There are, in fact, common sense regulations. You make it illegal for violent felons to own guns for the same reason you make it illegal for child molesters to come too close to a school. Will it prevent these criminals from repeating their crimes? Not necessarily, but it provides additional layers of protection for the general public. Pull over the felon on a traffic stop, find him in possession of a firearm, that is a crime in itself. Catch a child predator on a playground talking to children--they are going back to prison. Why? Because freedom is not, nor can it be, unlimited in any society. Law abiding citizens should have additional rights protecting them from convicted criminals. It is inherent in our social contract. You know how every so often you hear on the news that a murderer got out of prison, and within a short period of time he goes out and commits another murder? You know how it makes you feel disgusted, because duh, obviously. But as the man said, "Common sense...isn't". Then somebody posts defending the right for Bill Gates to own a stealth bomber under 2A... because it's expensive? And instead of agreeing that, yes, of course it should be prohibited that a 7 year old possess a landmine, someone posts stats on how teaching our youth about responsible gun ownership reduces the likelihood they will grow up to commit gun crimes. These are rhetorical examples, guys. Get it together. And you wonder why we get characterized as nutjobs and extremists. Because people say some extreme things, because "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" I used extreme examples trying to illustrate a point that has still been missed by some. Even if you draw the line at "anything short of nuclear weapons", EVERY SANE PERSON AGREES WITH SOME RESTRICTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Some restrictions do, in fact, promote the the safety of the general public. At this moment in history, there is a battle for the hearts and minds of all Americans regarding the 2nd amendment. Some of you guys could do more harm than good for RKBA. The argument must be "the further restriction of firearm ownership will not reduce crime, and it is certainly not justifiable to further infringe upon the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS." Arguing that the 2nd amendment is absolute and felons should be able to own Stealth Bombers because restricting a person from owning an "inanimate object is immoral" only serves to marginalize gun ownership, and makes you personally lose credibility, especially to an on the fence or gun control advocate. |
|
January 9, 2013, 03:38 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 147
|
I really enjoy them, and wish that they were still going into the civilian registry.
__________________
"When the people fear the govt there is tyranny, when the govt fears the people there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson |
January 9, 2013, 03:44 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Now, as to whether the courts would agree with me on full auto is another matter. SCOTUS already upheld the NFA in United States v. Miller though that was a very, very unusual case and the court used a rather novel line of reasoning to get where it did. If I were to speculate, I would probably guess that neither SCOTUS nor the American people in general are to the point that they would support the repeal of the NFA, at least not yet. Turning the tide and taking back the rights that have been stripped away from us over the years is a fairly recent turn of events. There are much more pressing and easily accomplished changes that we should make before tackling the NFA and none of it is something that can be done overnight. Honestly, I'm not even sure that the NFA is something which should be addressed judicially. Perhaps attacking the NFA legislatively would be the better approach. Regardless, my comments were not meant to be a suggested plan of attack for repealing the NFA, but rather my own personal views on the matter which is what I was under the impression that the OP was asking for. |
|
January 9, 2013, 04:33 PM | #55 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
Quote:
That same logic is used to promote other bans...it may not stop it but it will make it marginally more difficult or levy extra punishments once the crime has been committed. Quote:
That being said, can you directly refute the reasoning I presented towards limited restrictions? Or refute that someone with the financial means to purchase a large military vehicle or device, could not use those same financial means to create equal harm without said vehicle or device if they were determined to? Quote:
|
||||
January 9, 2013, 06:10 PM | #56 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
|
sig, I'm not really sure why you are even arguing with me, since you have stated that you think there is a line, some things should be regulated or restricted entirely. We agree. As far as where the line is, it's a matter of opinion. I think we can both agree that no further restrictions are necessary.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yep, I did combine the statements of different people's posts, but it doesn't change the position the different arguments are trying to make. It is inherent in the example that the bomber would not be without munitions. I'm making an extreme example. There have been comments in this thread The 2nd amendment is absolute, bombs are arms. Someone actually said "anything short of nuclear weapons". No doubt, there are many people out there who have even more extreme views. |
|||
January 9, 2013, 06:19 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 631
|
The way I see it is if you can pass the background check to own a firearm you should be able to own any firearm you can afford no matter what type it is. A gun is still just a gun no matter how fast it can fire.
|
January 9, 2013, 06:20 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
I'd rather be a trained rifleman with a semi-auto, than a nug with an M-60.
Full auto has it's place, and should be available in some manner. Being limited to shoulder fired weapons seems implicit in the phrase "in common use". |
January 9, 2013, 06:53 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Anyone could then drive a couple of trucks outside of Washington DC, launch a volley of missiles and kills tens of thousands of people and cause tens of billions in damage. The "too expensive" argument also fails when you start encountering all the rich homicidal crazies too.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 9, 2013, 08:12 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
|
|
January 9, 2013, 08:27 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Common sense regulations?
The use of machine guns in crimes were never an issue. Most of the Thompsons and BARs that made "the '20s roar" were stolen from police departments and National Guard armories. FDR had to do something to keep the Revenue Men employed after Prohibition was repealed. The NFA wasn't about crime at all.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
January 9, 2013, 08:40 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
BTW - "common sense" - is a Clintonism.
Prior to Clinton, I don't recall ever hearing that in conjunction with "gun control". "Meaningful" is another Clintonism. Maybe Holder was right. Maybe the brainwashing he called for in 1995 did take place. |
January 9, 2013, 08:54 PM | #63 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
I WOULD LOVE A FULL AUTO MG42-22 FROM GSG. How long do you think it would take them if the law changed? WHAT FUN!
The military issues one or two in every squad. How many squads are there? Oh yeah, THOUSANDS. What do they put in static emplacement? Full autos. What is on every vehicle? Full auto. What about law enforcement? EVERY OSHP officer now carries a DOD loaner full auto M16. CLEO can request a number of DOD loaners equivalent to their full time staff and now most do. Many have MP5 and such they paid for in addition along with a few that were turned in over the past 50 years. I guess thats OK because I know how to find a few that aren't very well guarded if I need them. Every organized criminal organization operating on US soil, and there are quite a few, has them. Apparently there are a whole lot of really good uses for full auto guns. My use is mostly tearing the ***** out of cans with a full auto MG42-22(belt fed), but there are others. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; January 9, 2013 at 09:00 PM. |
January 9, 2013, 09:00 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 15, 2005
Posts: 168
|
Sweet Thing asked me about this, she has never had an interest in gun until she met me. I guess it would be best to describe her as curious about them since I have such an active interest in them.
My in short form answer was that full auto stuff is a rich man's toy. You have to be able to afford one, last time I checked was when Mac 10s (cheapest point of entry into automatic firearms) were $3000 or so + the tax stamp. Then the next problem is keeping said firearm fed. It is quite fun giving a recalcitrant target a couple bursts or more. In basic training you couldn't have beat the grin off my face after I got to play with a M249. Long form answer, and I have given bits and pieces to her already, I see no reason for the 1934 National Firearms Act to exist. The politicians at the time played semantics by claiming "It's not a ban, it's a tax." It only serves to burden law abiding citizens. Just ask the Mexican cartels how hard it is to obtain their equipment due to draconian Mexican gun laws. |
January 9, 2013, 10:07 PM | #65 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,443
|
Quote:
I honestly can't believe the debate has been diluted to absurd statements of thinking the 2nd Amendment really includes items beyond what it says and the Founding Fathers' intent. Keep AND Bear means what it says. Name one, ONE full auto weapon that should NOT fall under the guaranteed protection of the 2nd Amendment and a real reason why. None of this, "Well someone might not use it effectively or safely" or, "I don't think there's any use for them" bullcrap. Show me facts that back up your claim why a person that's law abiding should not be able to exercise his/her right to owning one. Do your research. Find out what the Founding Fathers wrote about firearms ownership. Read up on how things were handled when advanced firearms of their day were invented, used and owned. Bear in mind you're reading what was new over 200 years ago and is easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. Rifling, repeating arms, etc didn't come into fruition until many, many years later. That stuff was radical in development. What did their descendents have to say about these God-awful newfangled inventions to firearms? Oh, and one other thing. What is a "law abiding citizen" since a member stated it isn't in the 2nd Amendment? The laws are written as to what a man/woman is compared to a child. A law abiding citizen is such until one is convicted of a crime, yes? Well, now. Wouldn't they be in prison/jail if they're a convicted felon? If not, then fix that current law. Doesn't do a dang bit of good to add yet another law since another one isn't enforced. "What about when they get out, Shane?" So? If one does the crime, one does the time. After that, I'm in belief the person has served time and starts over in life. Don't like it? Then change/enforce the existing laws.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
|
January 9, 2013, 10:22 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
|
OK, you're right, you win. Screw it, nuclear weapons, kids with grenades, felons with anti-aircraft guns, it's all just fine. Those things all infringe upon the 2nd amendment. There is no such thing as "common sense regulation".
Anyone willing to take such a stance has no common sense. |
January 9, 2013, 10:36 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Facts? there are little facts to support my claims other than my observations of his behavior to date.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 9, 2013, 10:48 PM | #68 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,443
|
Quote:
As concerned you should be, the basic fact of the matter is no one should be allowed to be restricted to exercise their rights guaranteed under the 2A until a crime is committed. We're back to blaming the inanimate object instead of the person. If your neighbor commits a crime, then harsh punishment should be administered under a jury of his peers, not a ban on the firearm. The anti-gunners are using the very argument you pose for AR15s. BTW, is the MK19 a full auto weapon?
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
|
January 10, 2013, 12:20 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
Yes, the MK 19 is a fully automatic 40 mm grenade launcher. It will launch about 6 rounds per second. It's pretty cool. And I am sure that is sucks to be on the receiving end.
I am only interested in an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that could reasonably be upheld in a court of law. When I read the plain clear language of the 2nd, it seems to imply no limit whatsoever. But I am not a lawyer, and smart people like Scalia have clearly stated that the states can impose limits on the RKBA. If he says so I believe him... His opinion counts for a lot, mine doesn't count for squat. And as I have said several times above, I don't think courts would ever find that a full auto weapon is protected in the same way as a handgun is. I think that an argument could be successfully made that a semi-auto military style firearm (AR-15, AK-47, etc) with 30 round mag IS a protected weapon. I think the courts might accept that. I hope they do. So when someone asks "should machine guns be allowed under the 2nd amendment", the question is meaningless. Should or should not is irrelevant. Machine guns are NOT currently protected, and that is unlikely to change. And we are wasting energy talking about it. We need to keep our focus on AR-15s and 30 round mags. That is the battle. |
January 10, 2013, 01:14 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 10, 2013, 02:02 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
As to felons with guns, you must remember that, in our attempt to legislate away all of our problems, we've turned a copious number of crimes into felonies and many of them have nothing to do with violence. A person convicted of income tax evasion is no less a felon than someone convicted of first degree murder, but the danger to society that those two people represent is worlds apart. In my estimation, once a person has served their sentence and paid their debt to society, their rights should be fully restored. By telling someone that, due to the crime they committed, they can never again be trusted with a firearm we are basically telling them that they are so dangerous as to be beyond rehabilitation. The way I see it, if someone is a dangerous criminal beyond rehabilitation, they should either be executed or remain locked up in prison as they have no business in society regardless of whether they have a gun or not. |
|
January 10, 2013, 02:46 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
|
Once again, I am not making an argument that Full auto weapons should be legal/illegal. My personal feeling on the subject is that they should be legal, but regulated more heavily than semi-auto firearms. They are, in fact, inherently more destructive than semi-auto firearms, which is why our troops tend to use select-fire/ automatic weapons. They are an entirely different class of firearms. You are free to disagree with me all you like on this topic. But please do not mix your arguments with the next, completely separate issue.
Every time a discussion begins like the OP started, people take it way too far, because they are sure that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is without any limitation whatsoever. This is incorrect, and it's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of your rights are unlimited. The freedom of speech is not unlimited. Libel is illegal. The freedom of the press is not unlimited: slander is illegal. The freedom of religion is not unlimited: human sacrifice is illegal. Your individual rights end where another's individual rights begin. This gets complicated, but we have the legal system to sort it out. It isn't a perfect system, and you may not agree with where current firearm regulations stand, on a national, state or local level. But if the basis of your thinking is, "I was born with the right to bear arms, which is limitless, and therefore no regulation whatsoever is justifiable" you are beginning your argument from a position that is fundamentally flawed. |
January 10, 2013, 03:43 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Full Auto Weapons tend to be used in vehicles and for suppression. I hear even three round burst isn't terribly popular.
My friends who were deployed said that they focused on single shot training with M16s out to 600 yards. I'm not even sure if Austin or DJ even had full auto access.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
January 10, 2013, 04:21 PM | #74 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,443
|
Quote:
Quote:
How and what makes them an entirely different class? The current Acts and laws set in place for us not to be able to own them without giving our perverbial first child? Just what factual premises are you using as your assertion a full auto is more "destructive"? Were you in the military as a ground pounder? Most I've come in contact with that use their M16 or variants thereof disagree with your reasoning why you think it's more destructive to use the full auto function. Do you know why select fire is a popular choice and why it's used? They sure don't use full-auto because the notion of some thinks it's more destructive. You really think a law abiding citizen should have obstacles just because of your opinion on full auto weapons are more destructive? Tell me where in the Constitution, BOR, or the writings of the Founding Fathers claim that. I, and hope you, know there isn't any. And this is the very thinking of what anti-gunners would love to hear from us. No hard core facts to back up why a law/regulation should be in place on a law abiding citizen is what they want. It's one of the many methods used to strip away our rights. Quote:
And, yes, your rights are unlimited....as long as you do no harm to another human being. Your very statement is doublespeak. You're using an illegal actions to justify unlimited legal actions. Talking about taking things too far.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
|||
January 10, 2013, 04:30 PM | #75 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,443
|
Quote:
It goes for ANY firearm, so I don't see your argument being more valid whether it's a Ruger LCP or a grenade launcher.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
|
|
|