2nd Amendment Regulation

[publius42]

The only time that the Supreme Court has ever ruled on a NFA case was the 1939 Miller decision

Not quite true. In Sonzinsky vs US, the SC faced the question of whether the NFA was really an exercise of Congress' power to tax, or was an unconstitutional regulatory power grab, and not a tax at all. They decided that the NFA was a tax and Congress had the power to pass it. The 2nd amendment (oddly) was not mentioned in the opinion.

Someone explain to me why the NFA won't go the way of poll taxes?

 

[Socrates]

The Slippery slope exists in Kalifornia. You want to see the results of 'gun control' without the Second amendment, try Kali.
I used to get the Shotgun News. Its about 100 pages of adds for guns our military uses, or has used, that I can't own in this state. It's about magazines that are all over 10 rounds that I can't own. It's about anything with a pistol grip pretty much being illegal. It's about only the rich being able to get CCW permits, and less then .5% of the population having the right to protect themselves.

You want to see why some of would rather have a firearm in the hands of a crazy person? First off, most criminals and crazy people can get guns, because they don't CARE what the laws are. In fact, laws for guns just limit the people that abide by them.

Enough of a rant. Suffice to say that Kali lives for the rest of you folks, in free states, to see what happens when the ball is pushed over the edge, and the legislators start writing, without a second amendment limitation. First:
BE VERY SCARED.
SECOND: BE JOYOUS. THERE MAYBE HOPE. THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST 4TH OF JULY I'VE EVER HAD.

 

[Al Norris]

I agree that we may be identifying the point where we diverge.

Agreement is nearly always a good thing. Hard to carry on a conversation, when we are just talking past each other.

I seems to me that you Antipas and many on this board are libertarians. I am not. That's OK, I like some of the things libertarians like and dislike others.

If you can't or won't spell my screen name correctly, how about just using my real name - It's at the bottom of every post I make - Al (or even Al Norris). Otherwise, it can appear that you are mocking the person you are writing to.

Yes, there are many libertarians on this board. However, there are also many conservatives, who call themselves republicans. There are also some few liberals who choose to call themselves democrats.

By and large, most here hold to some libertarian beliefs. Not all of them, but some beliefs. That appears to put both you and I into the same general category.

Control does limit freedom and sometimes that is good. ... However, I believe that we give up some of our rights for living in a civilized society.

On its face, I can agree with this. Where we diverge, I think, is in how much regulatory control is necessary. That's been the basis for disagreements, ever since the founding of this country.

On the one hand, are the classic liberals, the Jeffersonians. On the other hand are the Hamiltonians.

If a man wrongs me then I have a legal process that I will undertake to remedy it. You would pull out your gun and go shoot him I guess but I don't believe in that.

Here's a point wherein we diverge. You would lump me into the reactionary/radical groups, whereas, nothing I have written would give such an indication. I am often at odds with both extremes.

I believe, rather strongly, in the Rule of Law. If I believe the law is wrong, there are many avenues open to me to try and change the law. Ignoring the law, because I don't agree with it, is not an approach I take.

To that end, I, would not pull my gun over some meaningless quarrel. Attempt to harm me or mine, and the situation may escalate. Notice I said "may?" Each such situation is different and plays out differently. Guns are generally not the first tool I think of using.

You would know this, if you have read what I write. So please, don't stereotype me, without knowing who or what I stand for.

I have served in combat and seen plenty of killing...

Do you seriously think you are the only one to have served on a war-time footing? To have been in and fought in actual combat? To have lost friends (killed or wounded) to the enemy?

...but I think many of those who post here have not really seen it or they wouldn't applaud some of the stuff they do.

Perhaps. But the only thing a combat vet has over a civilian, is the fact that we know we can pull the trigger. Yet because this is a civilian setting, does not mean we have to, nor even that we want to.

I generally stay out of the T&T forum, because I can't stand some (much?) of the posturing I see. That doesn't mean I don't train or evaluate tactics.

This is just poppycock. Not allowing full access to military weapons by any and all civilians is not part of a police state.

That is merely your opinion, and not at all backed-up by history.

It is an assessment of risk that the public elected officials have made about those weapons and restricted them as a result.

That is flat out wrong. Most of the laws we are discussing, were instituted as a reaction to events that were widely publicized by the media (sensationalized is the word that immediately comes to mind). The reality is that such incidents are extremely few and far between, and, they are driven by the very same media that cries for more legislation.

The louder the cry, the more the politicians scramble to quiet those voices - by whatever means are expedient. The end result is the passage of reactionary legislation.

The only risk assessment being done, is that of the politician being seen to do something, in order to be re-elected.

The real question you should be asking, is why, between the time of the passage of the NFA and the Hughes amendment, and the hundreds of thousands of full auto firearms in the hands of civilians, why has this risk never materialized?

Could it possibly be that there never was such a risk? Logic dictates that any such risk was imaginary from the start.

 

[Socrates]

Most of the laws we are discussing, were instituted as a reaction to events that were widely publicized by the media (sensationalized is the word that immediately comes to mind). The reality is that such incidents are extremely few and far between, and, they are driven by the very same media that cries for more legislation.

The louder the cry, the more the politicians scramble to quiet those voices - by whatever means are expedient. The end result is the passage of reactionary legislation.

I believe it's summarized in law,

"Bad facts make bad law."

 

[HKuser]

Personally, I see the '86 Hughes amendment (18-922(o)) being ruled unconstitutional. But only after incorporation and several other types of firearms bans being knocked down and precedents are set.

I agree fully

I don't see the NFA being overturned. That particular regulation will be found constitutional, even under strict judicial scrutiny.

I disagree in part. I think the tax and CLEO signoff and the '86 freeze would not meet strict scrutiny. The registration, in order to ensure transfers are not made to prohibited persons, could pass muster, possibly, under strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny the NFA would have to be radically reformed, but I don't think a free-for-all would be instituted. I would like to see the Feds completely out of the gun control business, but for NFA this is a double-edged sword, as many states might just institute outright bans on current NFA firearms. If Heller can be sustained and produce progeny then I think the NFA landscape will be much different in 10-15 years.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If you can't or won't spell my screen name correctly, how about just using my real name - It's at the bottom of every post I make - Al (or even Al Norris). Otherwise, it can appear that you are mocking the person you are writing to.

Sorry about that. Didn't notice your name in the signature. Won't happen again.

That appears to put both you and I into the same general category.

Except when it comes to firearm regulation.

Here's a point wherein we diverge. You would lump me into the reactionary/radical groups, whereas, nothing I have written would give such an indication. I am often at odds with both extremes.

You would know this, if you have read what I write. So please, don't stereotype me, without knowing who or what I stand for.

I am basing my perception on your posts on the Joe Horn thread. You appeared to support his going outside (stupidly IMHO) and shooting those burglars in the back. Also, I saw no rebuke from you when nate45 said:

I hope if some bandits rape you and shoot your sister no one does anything about it not even call 911.

Seemed to me that was the camp you were in. Maybe not. If not then good.

Do you seriously think you are the only one to have served on a war-time footing? To have been in and fought in actual combat? To have lost friends (killed or wounded) to the enemy?

You are putting words in my mouth (or on my posts). I never said I was the only one on this board to see the elephant. What I DID say is that a lots of people who post on this board have NOT seen it and might not be so bloodthristy if they had.

That is merely your opinion, and not at all backed-up by history.

As is this merely your opinion as well. I read history too and I find no examples of democratic states becoming police states because citizens can't legally buy tanks. And don't give me that Nazi Germany stuff that was total firearms banning and on that point we could agree about total firearms bans.

The real question you should be asking, is why, between the time of the passage of the NFA and the Hughes amendment, and the hundreds of thousands of full auto firearms in the hands of civilians, why has this risk never materialized?

Maybe the answer is that heavily regulating these weapons work to keep the risk down. You don't know that it hasn't worked. Leave out the Hughes Amendment as I see no positive effect there as I stated before. I sure am glad Joe Horn didn't have a SAW when he shot those guys.

Could it possibly be that there never was such a risk? Logic dictates that any such risk was imaginary from the start.

Logic dictates no such thing. Criminals were using full auto weapons and the cops in many cases were outgunned. The facts are, I believe, very few law-abiding citizens owned full auto weapons in the 1930s. They were too expensive to own and shoot, served no useful purpose for civilian self-defense, were overkill for hunting. If I recall some of the manufacturers like Thompson went out of business because they couldn't sell 'em. You and others here act like every other American owned a BAR prior to 1934. I think that is imaginary.

The louder the cry, the more the politicians scramble to quiet those voices - by whatever means are expedient. The end result is the passage of reactionary legislation.

Sometimes, that is true and I opposed the AWB for that reason. Even though the AR-15 looks like an M-16 it is operationally no different from many other semi-autos. I see no reason to ban them BUT they ARE much different from an M-16 operationally and there is where I draw the line. You draw it much higher but I don't think your side will win that argument in the courts of law or public opinion. And we will NEVER win in the public eye if we gun owners look like a bunch of kooks who want to shoot somebody with machineguns.

What you need to know is this Al. Many of the people who take the time to post on this site ARE NOT the majority of shooters and gun enthusiasts that are out here. None of my gun shooting friends post here because they have jobs. I am retired and have time. Many, many of us believe that civilians should not have unrestricted access to all military weapons and WE VOTE! That does not makes us anti-gun but don't be lulled into thinking that those who post here are necessarily in the majority. They are just loud.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Under strict scrutiny the NFA would have to be radically reformed, but I don't think a free-for-all would be instituted.

HKuser, Did Heller institute the strict scrutiny standard for weighing gun control law against the Second Amendment? I must have missed it. Alan Gura said it did not.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

TG:
Move to Kali.
That should cure you.

No thanks Socrates, can't afford to live there. Pretty state though.

 

[HKuser]

Quote:
Under strict scrutiny the NFA would have to be radically reformed, but I don't think a free-for-all would be instituted.

HKuser, Did Heller institute the strict scrutiny standard for weighing gun control law against the Second Amendment? I must have missed it. Alan Gura said it did not.

Never said it did, actually, I posted within minutes of its release after reading the decision that Scalia had said that it was something other than rational basis (the lowest scrutiny) but did not say exactly what it was, and he left that open for further litigation as to what kind of (at least heightened) scrutiny, as an enumerated right, it would be. I was referring to Al's post in which he supposes how a strict scrutiny analysis would turn. This, TG, is another in a long line of misrepresenting others such as continuously claiming that anyone that disagrees with you must want totally unrestricted access to machineguns. Stop it. If you misunderstand the discussion, please refrain from continuous interruption of it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This, TG, is another in a long line of misrepresenting others such as continuously claiming that anyone that disagrees with you must want totally unrestricted access to machineguns. Stop it.

I am not misrepresenting anything or anybody. That is exactly what they are saying! They want the NFA repealed and for civilians to own all military weapons. You said that yourself once!

The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands.

Maybe you need to check your posts?

If you misunderstand the discussion, please refrain from continuous interruption of it.

I find that remark insulting and intellectually snobbish. You have no right to decide who posts and what they should believe. If you don't like people to disagree with you then maybe you should stop posting.

 

[Al Norris]

Should we cease with the rancor? Personal insults (intended or not) from either side have become way too common in many of the threads.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Should we cease with the rancor? Personal insults (intended or not) from either side have become way too common in many of the threads.

I agree with you Al but I will not change my opinions. I know I am a minority on this site but I think most of the rancor is coming at me. I never have been one to follow the party line.

 

[tyme]

I am not misrepresenting anything or anybody. That is exactly what they are saying! They want the NFA repealed and for civilians to own all military weapons.

Ignoring for a moment that, as HKuser said, not everyone supports that; some would be just fine with repealing the manufacturing ban and re-opening of the registry, and perhaps a reduction in the stamp tax fee. (regardless of what HKuser wants, or Antipitas wants, or I want... or what Gura wants... he's been very careful both to limit most of his concessions to the realm of the Heller case, and not really going into what his personal ideal of firearms laws might be)

There's no need to get hysterical about open access to NFA weaponry. The U.S. has experienced unregulated civilian access to such weaponry before, and the world did not end.

I agree with you Al but I will not change my opinions.

Such an absolute statement like that can only mean that you've encountered every possible argument for the legalization and deregulation of NFA weaponry, and machineguns in particular, and rejected them through careful reasoning. With such vast experience, is it so hard to convince us hold-outs that we're wrong?

 

[Al Norris]

Could it possibly be that there never was such a risk? Logic dictates that any such risk was imaginary from the start.

Logic dictates no such thing. Criminals were using full auto weapons and the cops in many cases were outgunned.

Ah well, I see I left out the part that before the NFA, the only crimes being committed with full-auto firearms were those by organized crime. Even those were actually comparatively few.

As to how many such weapons were in the hands of law-abiding citizens... Well, we don't really know. Do we? Records weren't being kept. Many in the armed forces brought back "war trophy's" and the US Government permitted it, with no regulation at all.

Were there millions? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Or only hundreds or perhaps mere thousands? Fact is, we don't know.

Hmm, the cops were being outgunned? Hardly. (but read on, before you answer)

If I recall some of the manufacturers like Thompson went out of business because they couldn't sell 'em.

In August of 1920, Auto-Ordnance Corporation introduced the Thompson sub-machine gun at a demonstration at Camp Perry. From this paper:

That same year the new gun was adopted by the New York Police. The first move in making, the Sub-Machine Gun internationally famous had started a move which has steadily spread until, with the start of 1932, several hundred police departments in the United States and Canada are equipped with the weapon which has made history in law enforcement.

Then there is this article (the page referenced contains 2 articles. I am referencing the first paragraph of the second article):

Although the proportion of Thompson submachine guns misused by Prohibition-era gangsters and Depression-era bandits was minuscule compared to the thousands used by American soldiers and lawmen, it is their lurid employment by hoodlums that is perhaps best remembered.

Auto-Ordnance began in 1916 and operated until 1939 when it became Maguire Industries. In 1944 the Thompson 1928A1 (and the military M1/M1A1) ceased production.

It was not the NFA that brought about it's "death." A fairly concise corporate history may be found here.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

As to how many such weapons were in the hands of law-abiding citizens... Well, we don't really know. Do we? Records weren't being kept. Many in the armed forces brought back "war trophy's" and the US Government permitted it, with no regulation at all. Were there millions? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Or only hundreds or perhaps mere thousands? Fact is, we don't know.

I don't think their were many "war trophies" that were full auto from World War I. What would they have been? Maxim machine guns? No I think maybe Lugers and Mauser '98s. Remember, after 1934 and before WW II any full autos brought back had to be demilled or registered unless they were kept illegally. Anyway, read this page about the lack of sales to civilians and why:

It was available to civilians, though its high price resulted in few sales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun

Bottomline is that civilians didn't own very many of them if at all and they were certainly NOT in common use before 1934.

It was not the NFA that brought about it's "death."

Yeah I think it was and because there were cheaper and better subs for the military. See here: http://www.answers.com/topic/thompson-submachine-gun?cat=technology

After the war, demand for the Thompson was practically gone. Auto-Ordnance Co. changed hands several times, always on the verge of bankruptcy.

There's no need to get hysterical about open access to NFA weaponry.

I am "getting hysterical" about HKuser saying that I am misrepresenting him when his quotes say otherwise.

The U.S. has experienced unregulated civilian access to such weaponry before, and the world did not end.

America was quite different in 1934 than from today. Much less violent and civilians did not buy full autos. Today, if they were cheap and they would be if we opened up the restrictions, much cheaper than a Thompson was in 1934 due to effcient technologies, I think a lot of people would buy them and we would have more violence with them because they would be easy to get. And I am not just talking about M-16s, but grenade launchers and other devices.

Such an absolute statement like that can only mean that you've encountered every possible argument for the legalization and deregulation of NFA weaponry, and machineguns in particular, and rejected them through careful reasoning. With such vast experience, is it so hard to convince us hold-outs that we're wrong?

I think that cuts both ways. Have you encountered every possible argument for the regulation of NFA weaponry, and machineguns in particular, and rejected them through careful reasoning? With such vast experience, is it so hard to convince me that I'm wrong?

Anyway, I am not trying to convince you of anything except to let you know that a lot of people in the gun world don't support this idea. They just don't post here a lot.

not everyone supports that; some would be just fine with repealing the manufacturing ban and re-opening of the registry, and perhaps a reduction in the stamp tax fee.

Heck, I am so much in the minority on this thread that it is hard for me to keep track of who says what I have so many posts shot at me by those who are angry at my position that I am not sure they ever really state what they believe. The only thing I have seen from HKuser is that he would restrict nukes and chemical weapons. I guess everything else would be available.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Limiting the Liberty of the people because of what an extremely small number of people may do, is nothing more than mass punishment - good for a police state, but not a free people.

This is just poppycock. Not allowing full access to military weapons by any and all civilians is not part of a police state. It is an assesment of risk that the public elected officials have made about those weapons and restricted them as a result.

Really, so how did they make their assesment? Was it the result of some study? Yet again I ask (probably still to go unanswered) exactly how does a lawfully owned machinegun put the general public at risk?

The same risk assessment led TN to have a max speed limit of 70 mph. A libertarian as you apprently are would say: "Let 'em drive however fast they want to. We can't stop em' anyway and we can't punish all for the few fools who will cause wrecks."

Apples to oranges, driving at exessive speeds poses obvious risk not only to yourself but to the other motorists on the road. A better analogy would be putting more severe restrictions on cars with V-8 engines or over 300 Horsepower (as if $4/gallon gas isn't severe enough).

Quote:
He does not mention the restriction of certain types of firearms at all.

Yeah he did:
Quote:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Ah but the devil's in the details. He mentions "dangerous and unusual weapons," many things are considered a weapon. Could it be that he's referring to the chemical and biological agents we've previously discussed. Who exactly decides what makes a weapon "dangerous" or "unusual." Nowhere in that excerpt is the word "firearm" or "gun" used at all.

Quote:
it could be argued that because short-barrel shotguns and machineguns are in common use by the military that they are indeed suitable for use by the militia (afterall, does the militia not act as a military force)

There is no militia in existence that acts as a military force. Scalia said that the right to keep and bear an arm in common use was not predecated on membership in a militia.

Did the militias in revolutionary times not act as military units? No the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated upon membership in the militia, but according to the Miller decision, the protected weapons must be suitable for use by the militia. Is not the whole point of the militia to act as a military force in times of crisis or are they just a glorified gun club?

Quote:
Could it possibly be that there never was such a risk? Logic dictates that any such risk was imaginary from the start.

Logic dictates no such thing. Criminals were using full auto weapons and the cops in many cases were outgunned. The facts are, I believe, very few law-abiding citizens owned full auto weapons in the 1930s.

Have any documentation to back that up?

Quote:
This, TG, is another in a long line of misrepresenting others such as continuously claiming that anyone that disagrees with you must want totally unrestricted access to machineguns. Stop it.

I am not misrepresenting anything or anybody. That is exactly what they are saying! They want the NFA repealed and for civilians to own all military weapons. You said that yourself once!
Quote:
The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands.

Maybe you need to check your posts?

Actually, you have been misrepresenting a number of us. I myself have stated numerous times that I have no problem with certain restrictions (which have been enumerated). How does allowing private civillians to own full auto constitute a complete lack of restriction? No one yet has spoken out against prohibiting certain people (violent felons and the dangerously insane) from owning a gun at all including full auto.

Quote:
As to how many such weapons were in the hands of law-abiding citizens... Well, we don't really know. Do we? Records weren't being kept. Many in the armed forces brought back "war trophy's" and the US Government permitted it, with no regulation at all. Were there millions? Hundreds of thousands? Tens of thousands? Or only hundreds or perhaps mere thousands? Fact is, we don't know.

I don't think their were many "war trophies" that were full auto from World War I. What would they have been? Maxim machine guns? No I think maybe Lugers and Mauser '98s. Remember, after 1934 and before WW II any full autos brought back had to be demilled or registered unless they were kept illegally. Anyway, read this page about the lack of sales to civilians and why:

Documentation? The BAR, Lewis Gun, and MP18 were all three possible war trophies or surplus arms. Bonnie and Clyde never seemed to have much trouble getting ahold of a BAR so they must've been relatively common.

Quote:
The U.S. has experienced unregulated civilian access to such weaponry before, and the world did not end.

America was quite different in 1934 than from today. Much less violent and civilians did not buy full autos. Today, if they were cheap and they would be if we opened up the restrictions, much cheaper than a Thompson was in 1934 due to effcient technologies, I think a lot of people would buy them and we would have more violence with them because they would be easy to get. And I am not just talking about M-16s, but grenade launchers and other devices.

Why would we have any more violent crime? Do the violent criminals currently have no tools with which to carry out ther heinous acts? A firearm, being an inanimate object, can't make anyone do anything.

 

[tyme]

America was quite different in 1934 than from today. Much less violent* and civilians did not buy full autos.

*citation needed

Today, if they were cheap and they would be if we opened up the restrictions, much cheaper than a Thompson was in 1934 due to effcient technologies, I think a lot of people would buy them and we would have more violence with them because they would be easy to get. And I am not just talking about M-16s, but grenade launchers and other devices.

Regardless of whether you're right, do you really think weapons themselves cause violence? If there's some underlying cause, like so much frustration with the state of society and government and whatever that more people today would resort to use of weapons to try to resolve and/or escape from their problems, maybe there are more pressing issues Congress should address than trying to keep the lid on the pressure cooker?

I think that cuts both ways. Have you encountered every possible argument for the regulation of NFA weaponry, and machineguns in particular, and rejected them through careful reasoning? With such vast experience, is it so hard to convince me that I'm wrong?

I don't need to. The government doesn't get to stomp on every right I can't defend at the drop of a hat. The government has to defend each and every instance of taking rights from the people. Their ability to do so without the support of a constitutional amendment is non-existent.

I realize this conflicts with your worldview, but some of us don't actually like it when precisely one prohibition experiment was performed constitutionally, it failed, and then the government started instituting a bunch of other prohibitions without bothering with amendments (knowing they would never be able to secure their passage). I guess they figured that it's harder to repeal prohibitions when they're not constitutionally passed to begin with, and after FDR's blackmail got the SCOTUS more or less lined-up in support of big government, who would stop the governmental-power gravy train?

Obviously, not you.

The only thing I have seen from HKuser is that he would restrict nukes and chemical weapons. I guess everything else would be available.

Well, I think restricting chemical and biological weapons is an exercise in futility. As with guns, the only way to restrict production of biochem weapons is by over-regulation of manufacturing equipment, chemical and biological supplies. That relegates major advances in chemistry and biotech to large companies with the resources to obtain and maintain the proper permits and access control measures.

Regardless of the fact that nuclear weapons are the one WMD that has a chance of being regulated (severely) without causing lots of problems for industry, the problem with all WMD is simple. Since we've started on the road to expansionist government, nobody cares about constitutional limits anymore, which means nobody thought to propose an amendment clarifying the whole 2nd amendment, militia, military, etc. issue with regard to access to NBC weapons, nor even guided missiles (not WMD but clearly a modern development that might merit concern).

The general paranoia and poor quality of science education for the average citizen ensures that any attempt to engage in an intelligent policy debate about WMD now will be simply a contest of special interest groups and who can steer the public's paranoia most effectively. Since only relatively few people really care about scientific progress, I have no doubt where such a debate would lead. Religious conservatives, paranoid over GE, would welcome heavy regulation of biotech. Chemistry sets are already heavily neutered with almost no outcry from the general public; that should give some indication where a public debate about heavier regulation of (bio)chemistry labware and chemical supplies would end up. These days, a few mentions of terrorism is all it takes to get people clamoring for more regulation, even while they protest increasing government intrusion; special-interest areas like chemistry and biotech are no-brainers for regulation, and damn the consequences to technological progress.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

He mentions "dangerous and unusual weapons," many things are considered a weapon. Could it be that he's referring to the chemical and biological agents we've previously discussed. Who exactly decides what makes a weapon "dangerous" or "unusual." Nowhere in that excerpt is the word "firearm" or "gun" used at all.

I think you are mincing words. A firearm is a weapon by definition.

Yet again I ask (probably still to go unanswered) exactly how does a lawfully owned machinegun put the general public at risk?

I have answered that repeatedly. The dangerousness, lethality and pure military design are self-evident and require a greater degree of care and restriction in ownership than for that of a firearm in common use by civilians.

Did the militias in revolutionary times not act as military units? No the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated upon membership in the militia, but according to the Miller decision, the protected weapons must be suitable for use by the militia. Is not the whole point of the militia to act as a military force in times of crisis or are they just a glorified gun club?

The Militia doesn't exist anymore plain and simple, except in the imagination of some. This is 2008 not 1790 and we have a standing Army to defend us against foreign invaders and can defend ourselves personally with the firearms currently in common use by civilians.

Have any documentation to back that up?

Oh, probably somewhere. I think I mentioned this in a previous post to Al Norris. You can look there.

I myself have stated numerous times that I have no problem with certain restrictions (which have been enumerated). How does allowing private civillians to own full auto constitute a complete lack of restriction? No one yet has spoken out against prohibiting certain people (violent felons and the dangerously insane) from owning a gun at all including full auto

You wish to make military weapons as available to the general public as other weapons in common use today. To me that is unrestricted. You are playing with words by saying that mentally ill and some criminals can't get them. In world I see you and others espousing, Joe Six Pack would be able to go into a gun store and buy a rocker launcher if he could afford it with nothing more than a background check. I call that unrestricted.

Documentation? The BAR, Lewis Gun, and MP18 were all three possible war trophies or surplus arms. Bonnie and Clyde never seemed to have much trouble getting ahold of a BAR so they must've been relatively common.

Common sense. Bonnie and Clyde stole their weapons I believe. Or maybe they bought them legally because they had the money and wanted to use them for their crooked enterprise.

Why would we have any more violent crime? Do the violent criminals currently have no tools with which to carry out ther heinous acts? A firearm, being an inanimate object, can't make anyone do anything.

Tired old stuff. Criminals don't obey laws so why have them. No further comment as that is ridiculous.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

*citation needed

Sorry I don't do research for those on this board. Believe what you wish or go look it up yourself. You already know it to be true I think so I will not go off on that wild goose chase.

Regardless of whether you're right, do you really think weapons themselves cause violence?

This is sophistry. I have dealt with those questions in previous posts. Feel free to look them up.

Since we've started on the road to expansionist government, nobody cares about constitutional limits anymore, which means nobody thought to propose an amendment clarifying the whole 2nd amendment, militia, military, etc. issue with regard to access to NBC weapons, nor even guided missiles (not WMD but clearly a modern development that might merit concern).

The war on drugs and the massive expansion of government power since 1937 seems to give just about everyone amnesia with regard to constitutionality.

Methinks you are a Libertarian. I am not. I don't think drugs should be legal and I don't think firearms should be without regulation. Society has changed and the government's role has expanded therefore in society. Fact of life, no right or wrong just the way it is.

Maybe we could colonize Mars?

 

[Socrates]

TG:
What this is becoming is should we throw away the Constitution, our form of government, and become socialist-facist, since that's where it's going. For the first time in nearly 200 years, in US VS. Lopez, 1995, the court actually put a limit on the Commerce Clause. It had become a federal dump for any question of validity of jurisdiction. This case wanted to regulate guns on school grounds on the basis that the education of our children was something that fell under interstate commerce. Scalia and the majority turned this around, and stated clearly this was unconstitutional, since, if allowed, this would allow Congress, the Federal government, unlimited jurisdiction. As he put it, "What couldn't be regulated under this standard?" or something like that.