Would a really, really low poll tax be constitutional?perhaps a reduction in the stamp tax fee.
I still don't see how the NFA can possibly stand, if poll taxes fell.
Would a really, really low poll tax be constitutional?perhaps a reduction in the stamp tax fee.
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
D.C. v Heller 07–290 (2008)
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.
The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier , are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tench Coxe -- Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788 [emphasis added]
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 liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty ...
"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Sorry I don't do research for those on this board. Believe what you wish or go look it up yourself.
This is sophistry. I have dealt with those questions in previous posts. Feel free to look them up.
Oh, probably somewhere. I think I mentioned this in a previous post to Al Norris. You can look there.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Would you feel better if "Chadwick Martini" was able to have a full-auto?
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.
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.
Let's see some documentation of U.S. soldiers carrying suitcase nukes.
So, what's the substantive difference between breaking rocks at Leavenworth and breaking rocks at Lompoc following conviction on felony charges?There should be restrictions of military weapons in civilian hands because they are not under military discipline.
So, what's the substantive difference between breaking rocks at Leavenworth and breaking rocks at Lompoc following conviction on felony charges?
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.
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.
Sound similar to what you are arguing?
That is NOT part of the discussion. I don't care if people own military equipment.
"I don't want the nutjob down the street to own a rocket launcher!"
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?
I'd have a look here, and, get a good idea of where the position you are holding came from:
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.
Quote:
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.
I think this is ridiculous.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Well, according to the links I posted earlier in the thread, it does indeed exist at least in Indiana and Tennessee.
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.
Quote:
Would you feel better if "Chadwick Martini" was able to have a full-auto?
Not without restrictions. No.
Quote:
I'll take your refusal to answer my question as a sign that you don't have a good answer.
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.
Quote:
And the current militias on numerous states drill and have a chain of command.
Documentation? There is no well regulated militia extant in the US.
Quote:
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.
There should be restrictions of military weapons in civilian hands because they are not under military discipline.
Quote:
Let's see some documentation of U.S. soldiers carrying suitcase nukes.
OK, because this was easy look here:
The US has claimed to have long dismantled their ADMs
The Davy Crockett was deployed with U.S. Army forces from 1961 to 1971.
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.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.
If you're not willing to support a claim when questioned then you probably shouldn't make it.
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?
This certainly looks like a training exercise to me. See how the documentation thing works.
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
From fiddletown:
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.
Why does a civillian need to be under military discipline?
Is civillian law not harsh enough?
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
along with its insidious sequels and the horrid sociopathic ogres that enforce it and extoll it in the first place.