The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9, 2013, 02:43 PM   #51
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 743
Quote:
The test for how far a right can be reasonably regulated is how much public interest does said regulation serve vs. how much liberty does it take away. In my opinion, the current level of regulation on full auto and large-caliber weapons does not represent a large enough increase in public safety to justify the degree of liberty that it strips away.
WebleyMkV: That is closer to a workable definition, and it might convice the court. It sure leaves a lot of discretion with the court, which may not be a good thing. What if they ruled that banning semi-automatic firearms is a good balance between public interest and liberty? We can't assume that they would think the way we think.
btmj is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 03:34 PM   #52
coachteet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
Quote:
Quote:

"Hmmm... so violent felons and minors should be able to own them? "

Yes...
Any law that assumes guilt, just by mere posession of an inanimate obeject is immoral.

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.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 03:38 PM   #53
Jack_Bauer24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 138
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
Jack_Bauer24 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 03:44 PM   #54
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
Quote:
The test for how far a right can be reasonably regulated is how much public interest does said regulation serve vs. how much liberty does it take away. In my opinion, the current level of regulation on full auto and large-caliber weapons does not represent a large enough increase in public safety to justify the degree of liberty that it strips away.

WebleyMkV: That is closer to a workable definition, and it might convice the court. It sure leaves a lot of discretion with the court, which may not be a good thing. What if they ruled that banning semi-automatic firearms is a good balance between public interest and liberty? We can't assume that they would think the way we think.
Well, the OP asked for my opinion and my previous post was meant to be presented as such rather than a hypothetical argument before the courts. That being said, I simply do not see SCOTUS accepting a ban on semi-automatic firearms because semi-auto passes the "common use" tests of both Miller and Heller with flying colors.

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.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:33 PM   #55
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Some restrictions do, in fact, promote the the safety of the general public.
Which restrictions are those? What evidence do you have to support that "fact"?

Quote:
Will it prevent these criminals from repeating their crimes? Not necessarily, but it provides additional layers of protection for the general public.
If you admit that it doesn't inherently prevent the commission of future crimes, what additional layers of protection are we receiving?

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:
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.
Now you're combining multiple people's arguments into one. For the record a stealth bomber(which I did not mention, however part of the premise you're attacking is mine) is about as dangerous as a 747 without munitions for a law abiding owner(or even non-law abiding). One could make the specific argument however that the technology used to make it difficult to detect is critical to national security and needs to be restricted though.

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:
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."
If this is what the argument must be in your eyes, and it's about law abiding citizens, that what is the specific harm in a law abiding citizen owning anything? Is it the potential that it could be stolen? the potential for an accident and the magnitude of that accident? or some undefined inherent trait of the <insert whatever device>?
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 06:10 PM   #56
coachteet
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:
If you admit that it doesn't inherently prevent the commission of future crimes, what additional layers of protection are we receiving?
Already fully explained. Read again.

Quote:
Which restrictions are those? What evidence do you have to support that "fact"?
7 year olds shouldn't be allowed to own landmines. The evidence for this? Common sense. How could such a draconian restriction possibly promote the safety of the general public?

Quote:
Now you're combining multiple people's arguments into one. For the record a stealth bomber(which I did not mention, however part of the premise you're attacking is mine) is about as dangerous as a 747 without munitions for a law abiding owner(or even non-law abiding). One could make the specific argument however that the technology used to make it difficult to detect is critical to national security and needs to be restricted though.

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.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 06:19 PM   #57
jasmith85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 272
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.
jasmith85 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 06:20 PM   #58
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,117
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".
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 06:53 PM   #59
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Simply put, there are clearly some things(nukes & other true WMDs(what constitutes this is debatable)) that shouldn't be in the hands of the public. However most things that people perceive to be too dangerous would either be too costly to pose a real threat or similar levels of harm could be caused by alternate but readily available means.
"Too expensive to be a threat" is a really bad argument. Suppose the government says it is ok to have them and then the military sells their old ones at auction for a fraction of the cost like they do with everything else?

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.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:12 PM   #60
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
This type of thinking is part of the problem. All or nothing idealism.There are, in fact, common sense regulations.
I used to think that not too many years ago...I was wrong...
Hal is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:27 PM   #61
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,379
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
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:40 PM   #62
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
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.
Hal is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:54 PM   #63
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; January 9, 2013 at 09:00 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:00 PM   #64
Kilroy08
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 15, 2005
Posts: 166
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.
Kilroy08 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 10:07 PM   #65
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
That definition would mean that limits could be placed on the ownership of a Cival War era canon, since it is too heavy to be carried by a man... But that ownership of an advanced MANPADS could not be limited, or infringed, by the government.... MANPADS = man portable air defense systems, i.e. shoulder launched surface to air missiles. At least 7 commercial jet airliners have been attacked with MANPADS by terrorists in the last 40 years.
Key word: Terrorists. How many law abiding men/women used one for use of that nature?

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
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 10:22 PM   #66
coachteet
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.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 10:36 PM   #67
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
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.
The MK19 Grenade launcher? I would feel uncomfortable if my neighbor who now uses the slight woods with no intervening crest between our places as a backstop for his rounds came by one loaded with HE rounds and started shooting it my way. Strangely I am certain he would be totally irresponsible and know he can afford one at the same time.

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.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 10:48 PM   #68
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Facts? there are little facts to support my claims other than my observations of his behavior to date.
And that's the very premise of how anti-gunners think. They take that reasoning and brainwash people into thinking it's "common sense" thinking.

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
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 12:20 AM   #69
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 743
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.
btmj is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 01:14 AM   #70
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
And that's the very premise of how anti-gunners think. They take that reasoning and brainwash people into thinking it's "common sense" thinking.
If you think that not following the rules of guns safety is cool then I will invite you over next time he is banging away in the woods.
__________________
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.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 02:02 PM   #71
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,833
Quote:
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.
Again with the tired old straw man. Weapons of mass destruction and high explosives are very different things than full auto firearms and anyone who can't see that probably doesn't have much common sense (which isn't nearly as common as the name implies). As I said before, the burden of proof when restricting a right is supposed to be on the government rather than on the people. The degree of destruction, both intentional and collateral, that WMD's and high explosives cause is sufficient to outweigh the loss of liberty that prohibiting them represents. Full auto firearms, however, are not nearly as destructive and, IMHO, their prohibition does not represent a significant enough interest to public safety to justify the abridgment of rights entail with banning them.

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.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 02:46 PM   #72
coachteet
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.
coachteet is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 03:43 PM   #73
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
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
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 04:21 PM   #74
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
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.
Well, stated. Cannot agree more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachteet
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.
"Heavy regulation" is, in no small part, basically ways and means for a government to deem it to be illegal. That's a fact.

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:
Originally Posted by coachteet
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.
Well, the Founding Fathers would certainly disagree with you since that's what is written. Plain and simple. If you can keep and BEAR a (fire)arm, then you're covered.

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
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old January 10, 2013, 04:30 PM   #75
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
If you think that not following the rules of guns safety is cool then I will invite you over next time he is banging away in the woods.
Then I'd have to say, IMO, it's close to as much your fault as it is his if you do nothing to help prevent that. If he's pointing it at you or in the direction of another person, then wouldn't that be brandishing in the state of Alabama? I would have already called the proper authorities if an unsafe action is taking place. If you already have taken action as a citizen should do, then all I can say is I feel for you. I don't see where one individual's actions should strip the rights of others that would be responsible otherwise. Is that MK 19 legal to own under current law?

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
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14811 seconds with 7 queries