2nd Amendment Regulation
- Thread starter Webleymkv
- Start date
- Status
TG,
I do find your knowledge and understanding of the history of the Militia to be flawed. In 1775, there were two types of militia. The "Select Militia", often called the "organized militia", who were paid for their services because they were soldiers more than "civilians". The other was the "unorganized militia" which consisted of those men who were able to serve (free white able-bodied men between 17 and 45).
The intent was for the citizen to also be a soldier when necessity arose. Jefferson wrote that the to train citizens to be comparable to professional soldiers would be an impossible task, as it would leave no time for them to be productive citizens. The best we could hope for is to put arms in their hands and maintain their spirits in fighting for their own homes and lands. Thus, Jefferson already dismissed the idea of comparting a militiaman to a modern day, highly trained soldier. Of course, in that period, the weapons Militiamen used were identical (and sometimes superior to) military weapons.
With regard to limitations on NFA firearms, I don't think the founders would have allowed it. And it appears that Justice Scalia concurs, at least in as much as we can read from his opinion.
At some later date, the court will have to decide what constitutes the definition of protected "arms". It certainly is not only firearms but includes other forms of weaponry -- i.e. helmets, body armor, bayonets and more.
And while a firearm is a weapon, a weapon is not necessarilyi a firearm.
Since I have supported a definition of "arms" similar to what Justice Scalia puts forth above, I'd suggest that the court would not find a protected status for weapons which fire explosives or are designed to be area-munitions (mines, grenades, etc.). And it removes from the table any rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction (N.B.C. weapons).
We have been through this discussion before with Congress too. They debated the "awe-inspiring firepower" of the modern rifle and claimed that it could not be trusted in the hands of the citizens "who may wreak havoc upon our towns" with it. Of course, this debate occurred (IIRC) in the late 1870's about Winchester's Repeating Rifle. Among the arguments against sales to civilians was that one man could outgun a squad of cavalry soldiers (who were still armed with falling-block Sharps).
This is almost precisely the argument used in Congress against the Winchester rifle. If we fast-forward to approximately 1913, the argument could be applied to the "military design" and "lethality" of the fairly recent military bolt-rifles (30-40 Krag, K98, 1903 Springfield, etc.) upon which about 98% of "sporting arms" are based. Should we demand you turn in your lever and bolt guns now?
As evidence that military weapons were not excluded from the protection of the Second Amendment, I'll let history serve the example;
As for colonizing Mars... I think it's more prudent to at least establish than man can live and work on the moon first. I'm all for establishing Lunar-Base-One.
I do find your knowledge and understanding of the history of the Militia to be flawed. In 1775, there were two types of militia. The "Select Militia", often called the "organized militia", who were paid for their services because they were soldiers more than "civilians". The other was the "unorganized militia" which consisted of those men who were able to serve (free white able-bodied men between 17 and 45).
The intent was for the citizen to also be a soldier when necessity arose. Jefferson wrote that the to train citizens to be comparable to professional soldiers would be an impossible task, as it would leave no time for them to be productive citizens. The best we could hope for is to put arms in their hands and maintain their spirits in fighting for their own homes and lands. Thus, Jefferson already dismissed the idea of comparting a militiaman to a modern day, highly trained soldier. Of course, in that period, the weapons Militiamen used were identical (and sometimes superior to) military weapons.
With regard to limitations on NFA firearms, I don't think the founders would have allowed it. And it appears that Justice Scalia concurs, at least in as much as we can read from his opinion.
At some later date, the court will have to decide what constitutes the definition of protected "arms". It certainly is not only firearms but includes other forms of weaponry -- i.e. helmets, body armor, bayonets and more.
And while a firearm is a weapon, a weapon is not necessarilyi a firearm.
Since I have supported a definition of "arms" similar to what Justice Scalia puts forth above, I'd suggest that the court would not find a protected status for weapons which fire explosives or are designed to be area-munitions (mines, grenades, etc.). And it removes from the table any rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction (N.B.C. weapons).
We have been through this discussion before with Congress too. They debated the "awe-inspiring firepower" of the modern rifle and claimed that it could not be trusted in the hands of the citizens "who may wreak havoc upon our towns" with it. Of course, this debate occurred (IIRC) in the late 1870's about Winchester's Repeating Rifle. Among the arguments against sales to civilians was that one man could outgun a squad of cavalry soldiers (who were still armed with falling-block Sharps).
This is almost precisely the argument used in Congress against the Winchester rifle. If we fast-forward to approximately 1913, the argument could be applied to the "military design" and "lethality" of the fairly recent military bolt-rifles (30-40 Krag, K98, 1903 Springfield, etc.) upon which about 98% of "sporting arms" are based. Should we demand you turn in your lever and bolt guns now?
As evidence that military weapons were not excluded from the protection of the Second Amendment, I'll let history serve the example;
As for colonizing Mars... I think it's more prudent to at least establish than man can live and work on the moon first. I'm all for establishing Lunar-Base-One.
so many different camps
The antis, of course, want all guns prohibited.
Most of the rest of the nation has been trained to believe that letting ordinary folks have access to "military weapons" will result in carnage. And considering the level of some of the people wandering around our country, if you issued them military weapons, it well might. And that seems to be the mindset some people cannot or willnot get past.
Everytime someone brings up the idea of allowing people the ability we had before 1986 (to own full auto weapons with licensing and govt approval) all they can see is every nutjob in the nation with a machine gun.
"They aren't suitable for self defense", "We don't need them" "They are dangerous". Phrases like these are used as justification for the position that "military arms" should not be allowed to the private citizen. And note also that whenever the subject is discussed, that those that favor the prohibition never seem to be able to make any kind of distinction between firearms, artillery, or nukes in the hands of civilians. To them it is all the same thing. Something they don't care about, have no interest in, decide that there is a danger, so all of them must be prohibited. Guilt by association with 70 plus years of movies and TV showing us the bad guys with machine guns.
"I don't want the nutjob down the street to own a rocket launcher!" Well, neither do I. But that isn't the same thing as the govt telling me I cannot own a war trophy that has been sitting in a closet for the last 60 years. But I can't, legally. Not since 1986. The registry is closed. The only legal course left to us if we find one of these that the previous owner did not register is to turn it in for destruction, and hope we don't get prosecuted for the illegal act of "possessing" it.
Once upon a time it was not a problem. You contacted the govt, filled out the forms, paid the tax, and kept the gun. Not allowed today, too dangerous, so sorry!
Argue all you want about how few people owned automatic weapons before the NFA, but be honest, if they were so rare, where did all the guns in the legal registry come from anyway? Sure, they weren't as common as a .30-30 deer rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun, so what? Short barreled shotguns were common until the NFA made them impratical to legally own. After all, when a new car costs $700, who wants to pay a $200 tax to own a $15 shotgun?
Generations of shooters have suffered hearing damage because noise reducing devices (comonly called silencers) are restricted by the NFA while other places in the world they are required for hunting and sport shooting, as a public safety measure!
Machine guns are fun to shoot. But they are expensive to feed. If we relaxed the restrictions somewhat, (like removing the 86 freeze) there would be an increase in the number of owners, but again, so what? The people willing to legally obtain the guns don't commit crimes (or at least nothing more serious than minor traffic violations), because if they did, they couldn't get licensed for the machine guns in the first place.
Here we are, 22 years after the freeze, and there has been no change to the rate of legal machinegun use in crime! That is because there is no rate if legal machinegun use in crime! A single incident in 70 years, or even two is not a crime rate. It is an anomaly. You are more likely to be killed by lightning than by a legal machine gun owner using their gun.
The laws governing machinegun ownership by civilians are (IMHO) paranoia, in the classic sense. Irrational Fear.
The antis, of course, want all guns prohibited.
Most of the rest of the nation has been trained to believe that letting ordinary folks have access to "military weapons" will result in carnage. And considering the level of some of the people wandering around our country, if you issued them military weapons, it well might. And that seems to be the mindset some people cannot or willnot get past.
Everytime someone brings up the idea of allowing people the ability we had before 1986 (to own full auto weapons with licensing and govt approval) all they can see is every nutjob in the nation with a machine gun.
"They aren't suitable for self defense", "We don't need them" "They are dangerous". Phrases like these are used as justification for the position that "military arms" should not be allowed to the private citizen. And note also that whenever the subject is discussed, that those that favor the prohibition never seem to be able to make any kind of distinction between firearms, artillery, or nukes in the hands of civilians. To them it is all the same thing. Something they don't care about, have no interest in, decide that there is a danger, so all of them must be prohibited. Guilt by association with 70 plus years of movies and TV showing us the bad guys with machine guns.
"I don't want the nutjob down the street to own a rocket launcher!" Well, neither do I. But that isn't the same thing as the govt telling me I cannot own a war trophy that has been sitting in a closet for the last 60 years. But I can't, legally. Not since 1986. The registry is closed. The only legal course left to us if we find one of these that the previous owner did not register is to turn it in for destruction, and hope we don't get prosecuted for the illegal act of "possessing" it.
Once upon a time it was not a problem. You contacted the govt, filled out the forms, paid the tax, and kept the gun. Not allowed today, too dangerous, so sorry!
Argue all you want about how few people owned automatic weapons before the NFA, but be honest, if they were so rare, where did all the guns in the legal registry come from anyway? Sure, they weren't as common as a .30-30 deer rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun, so what? Short barreled shotguns were common until the NFA made them impratical to legally own. After all, when a new car costs $700, who wants to pay a $200 tax to own a $15 shotgun?
Generations of shooters have suffered hearing damage because noise reducing devices (comonly called silencers) are restricted by the NFA while other places in the world they are required for hunting and sport shooting, as a public safety measure!
Machine guns are fun to shoot. But they are expensive to feed. If we relaxed the restrictions somewhat, (like removing the 86 freeze) there would be an increase in the number of owners, but again, so what? The people willing to legally obtain the guns don't commit crimes (or at least nothing more serious than minor traffic violations), because if they did, they couldn't get licensed for the machine guns in the first place.
Here we are, 22 years after the freeze, and there has been no change to the rate of legal machinegun use in crime! That is because there is no rate if legal machinegun use in crime! A single incident in 70 years, or even two is not a crime rate. It is an anomaly. You are more likely to be killed by lightning than by a legal machine gun owner using their gun.
The laws governing machinegun ownership by civilians are (IMHO) paranoia, in the classic sense. Irrational Fear.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Not as flawed as you may think Bill. What is flawed is my ability to write quickly to lots of people and refute lots of arguments glibly on the Internet
I acknowledge my deficit there. This board is a very limited medium I have not mastered. I used to have a rule in a previous life that emails over 10 lines required a phone call. Since that is not practical (or desired by me) is this case then you just have to put up with my brevity. I am a student of history and am well aware of the militia (enrolled and unenrolled some call it) and how it operated. However, our world has changed. In the old days of the 18th century most people lived out in the country and hunted and such and were well suited to the rigors of war as it was fought then. Today most of us live in cities and suburbs and play XBox and watch TV and don't know our neighbors. Joe Horn didn't know his he said but of course now claims they gave him permission to watch their house and shoot burgulars
What the militia was not was an untrained undisciplined mob that showed up to make war. They drilled, had a chain of command and reported to an elected official. What I do find is an a lot of people who post here are ignorant of what the militia was (note the word was) and have amalgamated in into something it never was of intended to be. They have bastardized the relation between the right of the individual to keep and bear arms with the old militia. As a result, they wish to have a world where virtually anybody can buy whatever military weapon they can afford to buy and keep it independent of any military structure or accountabiity and use it as they please when they decide to.
Now lets talk about warfare. I spent a career in the military. I saw the recruits come in and saw the amount of training and time it took to make them proficient at their duty. I am not just talking about marksmenship even though many had never touched a firearm but the tactics, woodcraft and other talents needed to be good soliders. This wasn't the case in 1790. Most people knew firearms because they hunted and they knew how to live in the woods. they also drilled with their local militia from time to time and warfare was rather simple (yet brutal).
Modern warfare is not simple today. I laugh when I read posts about "we should have the same weapons as the Infantry!" Well, the "infantry" which is certainly not even the largest part of the combat force is issued all kinds of weapons depending on the mission they have which could include yes even suitcase nukes. There is no more militia because warfare has become to difficult for the average joe to wage and so in the US we have a standing army that performs the function the militia did 200 years ago. The unorganized militia today is nothing more than a pool of people that the military can draw from, train and arm and then use to defend us.
I think many of you want something that never was and you can't have now. A bunch of individuals armed with weapons designed and produced exclusively for the military with no accountability to any military structure or chain of command. Most of us won't accept that.
That wasn't what the founding fathers would agree to today when in 1790 all that was needed was for Johnny to show up with 40 rounds and a peck of beef in his tote sack.
Tennessee Gent:
Consider the following article from the Rhode Island Constitution of 1842:
Would you suggest that this provision only applies to "the press" "collectively," and not to individuals? That if I'm not an official, recognized, card-carrying member of "the press," that I may not publish my sentiments on any subject? That if my publication wasn't somehow involved in "the press," whatever that means, that it could be prohibited or subject to government permission via licensing?
Getting wrapped around the axle of the word "militia" means that you're missing the underlying principle of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights, as expressed by Tenche Coxe in 1788:
The principle, in other words, is that government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.
That's why possession bans on military weapons are prima facie unconstitutional.
As for Scalia's "dangerous and unusual weapons" comment, consider the fact that "dangerous weapon" is redundant. If a tool is not "dangerous" to at least one person other than the operator when used as intended, then it can't be considered a "weapon," can it?
Certainly the M-16 assault rifle and the Beretta M9 pistol with its 15-round magazine, as standard-issue firearms for all US military forces, can't be considered "unusual" weapons, but both are still banned in DC and many other jurisdictions.
Consider the following article from the Rhode Island Constitution of 1842:
Would you suggest that this provision only applies to "the press" "collectively," and not to individuals? That if I'm not an official, recognized, card-carrying member of "the press," that I may not publish my sentiments on any subject? That if my publication wasn't somehow involved in "the press," whatever that means, that it could be prohibited or subject to government permission via licensing?
Getting wrapped around the axle of the word "militia" means that you're missing the underlying principle of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights, as expressed by Tenche Coxe in 1788:
The principle, in other words, is that government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.
That's why possession bans on military weapons are prima facie unconstitutional.
As for Scalia's "dangerous and unusual weapons" comment, consider the fact that "dangerous weapon" is redundant. If a tool is not "dangerous" to at least one person other than the operator when used as intended, then it can't be considered a "weapon," can it?
Certainly the M-16 assault rifle and the Beretta M9 pistol with its 15-round magazine, as standard-issue firearms for all US military forces, can't be considered "unusual" weapons, but both are still banned in DC and many other jurisdictions.
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
In case you're not aware, it is generally expected on this board that when someone makes a claim, they're able to back it up with some sort of documentation. When asked for documentation and they refuse to provide it by saying "go look it up yourself," most view that as another way to say "I don't have any." Basically, it's your responsibility to back up your own claims. Also, as to the links in your reply to Antipitas, they only give the history of the Thompson Submachine gun and are pretty vauge as to it's reasons for failing. As I stated before, there were several other full-auto weapons available.
Yes, but a weapon is not by definition a firearm. To read what Scalia wrote as "firearm" is taking a great deal of liberty with his words.
Why do they require a greater degree of care? A machinegun requires the same safe gunhandling skills as any other type of gun. They are no more lethal because as has been mentioned, you can't kill something any deader. Why do they require any greater degree of restriction? I someone is evil or irresponsible enough to do something bad with a machinegun, aren't they also evil or irresponsible enough to do it with another gun? Perhaps we should focus more on keeping all guns away from some people rather than some guns away from everyone.
Well, according to the links I posted earlier in the thread, it does indeed exist at least in Indiana and Tennessee. The militia hasn't been used in combat anytime recently because our country hasn't been invaded by any large force since the War of 1812. BTW, there was a uniformed standing continental army as well as a militia during the Revolutionary War, one never replaced the other.
Regardless of your interpretation, barring certain people from owning said weapons (as is the case with other firearms) does indeed constitute some sort of restriction (though obviously not to the degree you'd like). To repeatedly say it doesn't shows poor reading comprehension at best and outright misrepresentation at worst. Be it your intention or not, the repeated use of the term "Joe Six Pack" paints you as a bit of an elitist. Do you mean the average guy, the average alcohol abuser, or the average redneck perhaps? Would you feel better if "Chadwick Martini" was able to have a full-auto? I personally have no problems with the average guy owning a machinegun, whether others view him as a redneck or not (I've known several rednecks that I'd trust more with a gun than other so-called sophisticated people). Obviously an alcoholic shouldn't be able to have a machinegun, but neither should he be able to own any type of gun at all. Since we cannot punish people for what they have not done, why should we take away everyone's right for what one person could do?
Well, if they were so uncommon, where would they buy or steal them from? Few rural citizen or shopkeepers are going to have something to sell or have stolen that almost nobody wants.
I'll take your refusal to answer my question as a sign that you don't have a good answer.
And the current militias on numerous states drill and have a chain of command.
Scalia said that one doesn't need to belong to the militia in order to enjoy protection under the 2nd Amendment. It was the Miller case that said that a weapon must be suitable for use by the militia in order to be protected by the 2A. If we take that to mean the Revolutionary militia, does that mean that only flintlock muskets and sabers are protected by the 2A? I think not.
Let's see some documentation of U.S. soldiers carrying suitcase nukes. Besides, it could easily be said that suitcase nukes fall into the "dangerous and unusual" weapons category that Scalia mentioned.
While there is still a militia, it simply hasn't been used because there has been no warfare against a foreign power inside our country since the War of 1812. Since members of the militia by and large also have a "day job," many can't afford to leave the country for months or years on end to fight in the subsequent wars our nation has been involved in.
Why must there be military discipline in order to own a full-auto? If one commints a crime with a machinegun, they're still held accountable under the law. We need not be soldiers in order to enjoy our full rights as citizens.
In case you're not aware, it is generally expected on this board that when someone makes a claim, they're able to back it up with some sort of documentation. When asked for documentation and they refuse to provide it by saying "go look it up yourself," most view that as another way to say "I don't have any." Basically, it's your responsibility to back up your own claims. Also, as to the links in your reply to Antipitas, they only give the history of the Thompson Submachine gun and are pretty vauge as to it's reasons for failing. As I stated before, there were several other full-auto weapons available.
Yes, but a weapon is not by definition a firearm. To read what Scalia wrote as "firearm" is taking a great deal of liberty with his words.
Why do they require a greater degree of care? A machinegun requires the same safe gunhandling skills as any other type of gun. They are no more lethal because as has been mentioned, you can't kill something any deader. Why do they require any greater degree of restriction? I someone is evil or irresponsible enough to do something bad with a machinegun, aren't they also evil or irresponsible enough to do it with another gun? Perhaps we should focus more on keeping all guns away from some people rather than some guns away from everyone.
Well, according to the links I posted earlier in the thread, it does indeed exist at least in Indiana and Tennessee. The militia hasn't been used in combat anytime recently because our country hasn't been invaded by any large force since the War of 1812. BTW, there was a uniformed standing continental army as well as a militia during the Revolutionary War, one never replaced the other.
Regardless of your interpretation, barring certain people from owning said weapons (as is the case with other firearms) does indeed constitute some sort of restriction (though obviously not to the degree you'd like). To repeatedly say it doesn't shows poor reading comprehension at best and outright misrepresentation at worst. Be it your intention or not, the repeated use of the term "Joe Six Pack" paints you as a bit of an elitist. Do you mean the average guy, the average alcohol abuser, or the average redneck perhaps? Would you feel better if "Chadwick Martini" was able to have a full-auto? I personally have no problems with the average guy owning a machinegun, whether others view him as a redneck or not (I've known several rednecks that I'd trust more with a gun than other so-called sophisticated people). Obviously an alcoholic shouldn't be able to have a machinegun, but neither should he be able to own any type of gun at all. Since we cannot punish people for what they have not done, why should we take away everyone's right for what one person could do?
Well, if they were so uncommon, where would they buy or steal them from? Few rural citizen or shopkeepers are going to have something to sell or have stolen that almost nobody wants.
I'll take your refusal to answer my question as a sign that you don't have a good answer.
And the current militias on numerous states drill and have a chain of command.
Scalia said that one doesn't need to belong to the militia in order to enjoy protection under the 2nd Amendment. It was the Miller case that said that a weapon must be suitable for use by the militia in order to be protected by the 2A. If we take that to mean the Revolutionary militia, does that mean that only flintlock muskets and sabers are protected by the 2A? I think not.
Let's see some documentation of U.S. soldiers carrying suitcase nukes. Besides, it could easily be said that suitcase nukes fall into the "dangerous and unusual" weapons category that Scalia mentioned.
While there is still a militia, it simply hasn't been used because there has been no warfare against a foreign power inside our country since the War of 1812. Since members of the militia by and large also have a "day job," many can't afford to leave the country for months or years on end to fight in the subsequent wars our nation has been involved in.
Why must there be military discipline in order to own a full-auto? If one commints a crime with a machinegun, they're still held accountable under the law. We need not be soldiers in order to enjoy our full rights as citizens.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well, I guess that is too bad. I am in a minority view here and are bombarded with these requests and choose not to jerked around looking up stuff that others can view if they wish. Many of the claims made here by those who oppose my views aren't documented either.
I think this is ridiculous.
I have set out in previous posts and yes you can look them up why full auto weapons are not equal to a butter knife and why dangerous does not equal evil. That is more sophistry and not worthy of further discussion.
The link you posted leads to no militia. That is an unauthorized voluntary paramilitary organization who answers to no one. This is one of those "New Militias" I spoke about earlier.
Not without restrictions. No.
Think whatever you wish. However, I have addressed that one in other posts. The board has a search feature you can use. I won't repeat positions I have already stated. No laws stop crime.
Documentation?
There is no well regulated militia extant in the US.There should be restrictions of military weapons in civilian hands because they are not under military discipline.
OK, because this was easy look here:
http://www.fleetweek.us/NewContent/0,13190,Hayden_072204,00.html
or this:
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/davyc.aspx
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I think it is warmer in Lompoc?
Seriously, it's what gets you in there that matters. Lot more ways to put somebody in jail in the military. We have to obey all the laws you guys do and many many more on top of that. Plus we answer to a chain of command. You don't.That's sad. To spend that amount of time defending a country, and conclude with that sort of logic is truly scary.
The Second amendment is about being able to protect yourself from people who think just as you do, and, who have the ability to use the military to take over the country. The founders clearly understood that the greatest threats would come from a 'King' figure, so, they tried to figure out a way to have a figure head, with no power. That worked, until communications changed, and speed of transport changed, and, all of a sudden the president could get to other countries in much quicker time then prior, read 5 months on a boat/ship vs. 5 hours on a jet, not to mention the wireless communications.
They also feared a military takeover of the country, by folks who would disarm, and then take over the government, as the British attempted to do here. Sound similar to what you are arguing?
I don't really much care what the average recruits learning curve is. That is NOT part of the discussion. I don't care if people own military equipment. I know the illegals coming in from Mexico have whatever weapons they want, courtesy of our 'friend' to the south.
I suspect the 'regulation' you and Scalia have in mind is considerably different. I think he's after strict scrutiny, similar to the limitations on free speech.
I hope I'm right.
Hmm... okay. TG, suppose you get orders to confiscate machineguns from a private residence inside the U.S. You are not told whether they are legally possessed or not. Do you follow the orders?
Or suppose you are told that they are illegally possessed (no tax forms on file with the ATF but a reliable informant identified both the person and the full-auto firearms). Do you follow the orders then?
Or suppose you are told that they are illegally possessed (no tax forms on file with the ATF but a reliable informant identified both the person and the full-auto firearms). Do you follow the orders then?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I am very sad indeed that people like you believe we who serve you sometimes under pain of death would simply disregard our oaths to uphold the Constitution. I will chalk that up to innocent ignorance. Only my marriage vows were as sacred to me as the oath I took when commissioned. However, I don't think you meant any harm but the lack of trust in those who voluntarily serve you is disheartening.
Not even close. You must have me mixed up with someone else.
It is and I do care as 44AMP said:
If I'm in the military no. The order would be illegal and we are trained not to follow them. If a LEO and there is a valid search warrant issued by a competent and valid legal authority then of course I would enter the house and seize it. That is constitutional
I'd have a look here, and, get a good idea of where the position you are holding came from:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301054
Jim did an excellent job of laying out the history of why the 2nd amendment ended up as it's regulated.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301054
Jim did an excellent job of laying out the history of why the 2nd amendment ended up as it's regulated.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I looked at it sometime before.
Does this sort of thing relate to your position?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTw86hRXeSE
or this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W8Zi7M_Oho&feature=related
Actually, it's quite simple. If you're not willing to support a claim when questioned then you probably shouldn't make it.
Think what you will, but your equation of the word 'weapon' to 'firearm' is like equating the word 'vehicle' to 'pickup truck'. While one is by definition a type of the other, the reverse isn't necessarily true.
Yet again you're dodging the question. You have not told anyone exactly how a full-auto requires any more careful gun hadling than another firearm (nobody has equated one to a butter knife and that argument is a strawman). Nor did I equate dangerous to evil. I spoke of evil people that shouldn't have any type of firearm at all, and the question in which I spoke of them has still yet to be answered. I suspect the reason you're unwilling to discuss this is that you have no further logical argument.
Where in the Constitution does it specify between an organized or unorganized militia? Where does it specify who the militia should answer to? Where does it specify whether the members should be volunteers or conscripts? Actually, these militas are answerable to the same ultimate power that the entirety of the U.S. government is: the people.
Well, that clears that up. Now what about an explanation for the rest of your "Joe Sixpack" comments?
No, you haven't addressed that particular question in this thread (at least not directly). Obviously no law can prevent crime because without laws nothing would be a crime and that's called anarchy. While no law can stop an act that one is determined enough to commit, certain laws and punishments are required in order to have a civilized society and the fear of punishment will prevent at least a certain amount of people from performing that act. There will always be a certain amount of people who are not willing to obey a given law. If people in violation of that law are posing a danger to society at large then the law is, in my view, just. Civilization cannot survive without laws prohibiting murder. However, a machinegun be it legal or not is not overly hard to get if one is determined enough (they can be had easily enough through theft, the black market, or fabrication). Is it not logical that if someone is willing to commit murder, that the consequences of violating a gun law probably aren't on the priority list? A law such as the NFA which from the evidence I've see contributes nothing to the common good serves only to turn a few otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. As far as I can see, restricting machineguns to level that they currently are does not serve public safety and is nothing more than an infrigement upon our rights.
http://www.michiganmilitia.com/SMVM/field_reports/2007/feb007/sno_dawg_info.htm
This certainly looks like a training exercise to me. See how the documentation thing works.
Once again, you've either missed the point or dodged the question. Why does a civillian need to be under military discipline? Is civillian law not harsh enough? Would you prefer a military state?
From your first link
from your second
Neither of these weopons are currently in service with the U.S. military. This is beside the point as explanations as to the differences between nukes and machineguns have been given by myself and other posters in this very thread already (specifically posts #78, 93, and 96).
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Notwithstanding what some folks will want, and others think appropriate, at the end of the day, the courts will hammer out the permissible scope of regulation of Second Amendment rights based on accepted standards for the evaluation of the regulation of Constitutionally protected rights. Based on some of the language in Scalia's opinion, and thus far accepted doctrine applicable to regulation of enumerated, fundamental rights, that should be strict scrutiny of claims that the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest, that the regulation is no broader than necessary to serve that interest, and that it does not completely obviate the right.
And I strongly suspect that no matter how much some folks would like ready access to fully automatic weapons, the NFA will probably survive largely intact, as will state law prohibitions on fully automatic firearms. I suspect that arguments by states that such prohibitions are necessary to limit the proliferation of highly destructive weapons, while not significantly impairing a private citizen's rights of self defense, will find considerable traction with most courts.
And I don't think that the argument that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of revolutions as the last resort against tyranny will find a lot of sympathy with most judges. It may well be true that such was in the minds of the Framers, and a decent philosphical argument can be made in support of that position. But judges are political creatures and are unlike to carry things quite that far.
I have to admit that I may be somewhat bias. Shooting full auto can be fun, but I have no great wish to own (and feed) a fully automatic weapon. (Although I think the H&K M5 is wonderful piece of machinery; and while I'd love to own a nice Steyr AUG and AR15, I'd be satisfied with the semi-automatic variants.) But I don't have any doctrinaire objections to honest citizens owning fully automatic weapons, as long as I don't have to pay their ammunition bills.
HOWEVER, if the composition of the Court changes significantly, Scalia's hints in the direction of a strict scrutiny standard may go out the window. Indeed if Obama is our next President and starts filling Supreme Court vacancies with very liberal justices, all of Heller could be back on the table. That's what really worries me.
And I strongly suspect that no matter how much some folks would like ready access to fully automatic weapons, the NFA will probably survive largely intact, as will state law prohibitions on fully automatic firearms. I suspect that arguments by states that such prohibitions are necessary to limit the proliferation of highly destructive weapons, while not significantly impairing a private citizen's rights of self defense, will find considerable traction with most courts.
And I don't think that the argument that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of revolutions as the last resort against tyranny will find a lot of sympathy with most judges. It may well be true that such was in the minds of the Framers, and a decent philosphical argument can be made in support of that position. But judges are political creatures and are unlike to carry things quite that far.
I have to admit that I may be somewhat bias. Shooting full auto can be fun, but I have no great wish to own (and feed) a fully automatic weapon. (Although I think the H&K M5 is wonderful piece of machinery; and while I'd love to own a nice Steyr AUG and AR15, I'd be satisfied with the semi-automatic variants.) But I don't have any doctrinaire objections to honest citizens owning fully automatic weapons, as long as I don't have to pay their ammunition bills.
HOWEVER, if the composition of the Court changes significantly, Scalia's hints in the direction of a strict scrutiny standard may go out the window. Indeed if Obama is our next President and starts filling Supreme Court vacancies with very liberal justices, all of Heller could be back on the table. That's what really worries me.
It's not surprising because so many who also take oaths to defend the Constitution blatantly ignore it with impunity. 4 of them sit on the Supreme Court, dozens in Congress and federal positions, and hundreds of them sit in sheriff and CLEO positions. The Constitution and their oaths mean diddly squat to them or we wouldn't have the NFA along with its insidious sequels and the horrid sociopathic ogres that enforce it and extoll it in the first place.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
You don't have a vote in what I choose to say.
Organized and unorganized militias are referenced in the Militia Act of 1903. By your answer I see the militias you believe the constitution envisoned are answerable to no one, that is not a militia that is a mob.
A figure of speech.
This is a militia?:barf: OMG you have got to be kidding me! These are right wing crazies who answer to no one. If this is what you think the constitution envisoned? This is no more a militia than peanut butter! They are an unauthorized paramilitary organization. Is this guy their commander?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Koernke
These guys are hilarious LOL!
Does this help? If you don't understand the difference in lethality and the very easy and real possibility to harm innocents indiscriminately between machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers and weapons commonly available to civilians now then I can't help you. This is common sense.
He doesn't. But the restrictions put on the military make less danger to the public the weapons that you advocate civilians own with no real restrictions.
No controls until after the fact and then people are dead who shouldn't be. See Joe Horn.
I think the ADMs still are but no matter, you asked for examples and I gave them. Remember the article said "claimed".
You harp on the extremes but what about other weapons within the spectrum? SAW, M240, Stinger, AT-4, M203, et al. Should civilians have those as well? If not why not? What is your rationale?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Like Jack Booted Thugs?
- Status