2nd Amendment Regulation

[Tennessee Gentleman]

if an impartial court were allowed to hear both sides of the argument, I think Miller may have turned out quite differently.

Unsupported speculation.

That is nothing more than your opinion, an opinion which the majority of those posting here do not share.

Unsupported speculation.

If I'm not mistaken, both the Spencer and Henry rifles were developed or at least found their first widespread use during the Civil War.

Made for civilians adopted by the military. The point I originally made.

My fear is that if other gun owners hear nothing but defeatist attitudes like yours and appeasment agendas like yours then they will too easily accept further erosion of our rights.

Opinion not backed up by any facts.

The Luger and Mauser C96 were the first successful semi-auto pistols that I'm aware of and both were heavily marketed to the military. The Mondragon Rifle was the first successful semi-automatic rifle and was used by German Aircraft crews during WWI.

Documentation?

That is the key difference but does not illustrate a complete lack of relation. Try again.

Relation is irrelavent. They are different weapons.

Quote:
Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934Few if any owned them. See my previous posts.

Yet more poorly or completely unsupported speculation.

Read previous posts where links were provided.

Yeah I understand the way some hunters feel but that is changing as people who shoot are about the same number as those who hunt.

Unsupported speculation.

You should listen to Michael Bane's podcast.

Yawn, are your really trying to have a discussion? I will not answer any more of your posts like the last one if you have nothing else to add.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Since TG likes to repeatedly remind us that there is a difference between a .22 bolt rifle and a Stinger missle (I stopped counting at 7 references), let's stop this silly business.

Thank you Bill I am really tired of the question.

Arms like Stinger missles, bazookas, TOW/HEAT rockets and artillery certainly are unusual weapons which do not have much practical use in non-military life.

And all full auto weapons do like a .50 cal M2 or SAW? This sounds like you are adopting my position.

So, you think the line is drawn at full auto and that would include any type of full auto (M-60, SAW, M2 50 cal, etc) because they are less dangerous than cannon? Are you saying that only these weapons should be dropped from NFA regulation or should we throw the whole thing out?

Are you drawing the line at weapons whose shells explode?

Here is a quote I read from the ACLU site. How would you respond?

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Asking to whom the members of the unorganised militia report does not cast onto doubt its existence. It simply illustrates one facet of the word "unorganised".

Is that a "well-regulated militia"? Well regulated and unorganized don't go well together do they? What I think you are postulating is a mob with guns.

Here is a link for you to look at: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp#3.50

Here is a good quote about the myth of the militia:

To try to get around this problem, the militia advocates have seized upon the phrase "unorganized militia" in the US regulations. The subtle rhetoric trick here is to claim the "unorganized militia", (a term simply meaning eligible citizens) is the same as the "organized militia" (a term meaning near-army) - EXCEPT when it comes to any State and Federal controls. They thus try to have it both ways, all the good things about the term (military connotations), without any of the restraints implied (government authority). However, it's very much an invention without any basis in fact. They just hope no-one in the audience knows enough history to call them on it, and they're often right.

But the propaganda here has it exactly backwards. The whole "unorganized militia" aspect was a much later legislative maneuver for people to GET OUT of the real (i.e. "organized") militia, akin to say getting out of the draft by being shuffled into a "reserve draft" category. It was for people to escape the conscription-like service requirements, not a license for private paramilitary groups. The structural details of the militia system were concerned with the extremely difficult task of funding and running an effective military without having a large standing army. "Unorganized militia" in modern terms was more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

 

[publius42]

I thought we were done talking about militias after the holding in Heller? Isn't militia membership now "unconnected" with 2nd amendment rights?

If full autos owned by someone other than the government are so dangerous, why is the safety record so good, and the rate of crime with those guns so low? And why, with such low rates of crime and such a good civilian record, did they need to be banned in 1986? I'm not the only one to wonder that...
Guncite

Crime with Legally Owned Machine Guns

In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states.

Crime Involving Illegally Owned Machine Guns

Again in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

* Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

* A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

* 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

A Good Argument for Gun Registration?

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.

 

[zukiphile]

Asking to whom the members of the unorganised militia report does not cast onto doubt its existence. It simply illustrates one facet of the word "unorganised".

Is that a "well-regulated militia"? Well regulated and unorganized don't go well together do they? What I think you are postulating is a mob with guns.

You are again mistaken. Regulated is not a synonym for regimented. "Well regulated" and organised are different concepts. Portions of the militia can be well practiced in the use of firearms, yet be entirely unorganised, or conversely be strangers to the use of arms yet be highly organised.

To label the public a "mob" simply becuase they have guns is a peculiar appeal to fear.

Here is a link for you to look at: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp#3.50

Your Anti-Defamation League source is dubious. It conflates service in A militia with existence of THE militia. Note that congress is empowered to organise the militia, not create it, as the ADL incorrectly concludes.

Certainly, your source offers a strawman argument. It falsely claims that the organised and unorganised militia are claimed to be the same as part of some "sublte rhetorical trick". This is not frank. The claim is that they are both the militia.

At the top of the second page, the SCOTUS defines the militia as comprising "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." To claim that this group no longer exists requires a basic misunderstanding of what "the militia" is.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I thought we were done talking about militias after the holding in Heller? Isn't militia membership now "unconnected" with 2nd amendment rights?

Agreed, but some folks are using that argument to justify why they should have access at military weapons without restriction.

An observant reader would think the strict registration requirements and extremely low rates of crime committed with legally owned automatic weapons are powerful arguments for "sensible" gun control. However an even keener reader notices that despite the sterling record of auto-weapons owners for over fifty years, and despite: registration, police approval, state approval, special taxes, waiting periods, and extensive background checks, in 1986, ownership of newly manufactured automatic weapons was prohibited to civilians.

All I can see from this quote is that he doesn't like the 1986 Hughes Amendment. I have aleady offered to sign a petition to repeal that one. However, one could say the NFA works because of your stats.

"Well regulated" and organised are different concepts. Portions of the militia can be well practiced in the use of firearms, yet be entirely unorganised, or conversely be strangers to the use of arms yet be highly organised.

You are using sophistry again. This sounds like Bill Clinton arguing about what the word "is" means. According to my dictionary unorganized means: not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole. Regulated means: to bring order, method, or uniformity to.

Your positions that we have an unorganized well-regulated militia is without logical or reason. The COTUS says well-regulated period. The Militia Act of 1903 not the COTUS came up with the idea of orgnanized and unorganized militias to which you cling. The unorganized militia is nothing more than a pool of people eligible for the membership in the well regulated militia.

To label the public a "mob" simply becuase they have guns is a peculiar appeal to fear.

An untrained, unorganized group of people with no established legal leadership who has access to all types of military weapons and answers to no authority until after the fact is a mob and something all citizens should fear.

Your Anti-Defamation League source is dubious.

No more so than any commentary you have provided. You just don't like what they say.

 

[zukiphile]

Your Anti-Defamation League source is dubious.

No more so than any commentary you have provided.

I explained the error in your ADL link. I have provided you the text of a Supreme Court decision and US code. You have demonstrated no error in either.

To label the public a "mob" simply becuase they have guns is a peculiar appeal to fear.

An untrained, unorganized group of people with no established legal leadership who has access to all types of military weapons and answers to no authority until after the fact is a mob and something all citizens should fear.

As I've noted to you previously, your personal fear of an armed public is not a competent basis for constitutional interpretation.

Your positions that we have an unorganized well-regulated militia is without logical or reason.

That is not my position. I would recommend that you read the Heller decision. It lays out the role of a prefatory clause in statutory construction. It very clearly does not play the role you assign it, and in no sense means "Only for so long as a highly regimented militia of federal creation is necessary..."

This sounds like Bill Clinton arguing about what the word "is" means. According to my dictionary unorganized means: not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole. Regulated means: to bring order, method, or uniformity to.

Well, here's your problem. /auto-mechanic.

A dictionary is not a constitutional northstar. The Heller decision addresses that plain misunderstanding.

The COTUS says well-regulated period.

I am not sure what you meant to communicate with that, though it is not a correct rendition of the text.

"Well regulated" and organised are different concepts. Portions of the militia can be well practiced in the use of firearms, yet be entirely unorganised, or conversely be strangers to the use of arms yet be highly organised.

You are using sophistry again.

The statement that there is no militia is false as a matter of law and fact.

This may be the third time you've used this excuse when your error has been demonstrated. I leave it to the reader to assess whether your excuse indicates good faith.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I explained the error in your ADL link.

I suggest you go back and read more if it. I find it to be rather exhaustive in it's research. I think it will show you more error on your part.

I have provided you the text of a Supreme Court decision and US code. You have demonstrated no error in either.

The text you provide from Heller is ober dictum and not law but commentary. The statute does not refute what I maintain.

your personal fear of an armed public

I think most of the public as well as all three branches of government fear the mob you propose.

This may be the third time you've used this excuse when your error has been demonstrated.

I am not impressed with your clever wordsmithing and sophism. I use shirt sleeve English and find your arguments without merit. You have shown no error on my part.

I leave it to the reader to assess whether your excuse indicates good faith.

I will agree to that condition.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:
But since you think the 86 law was dumb, will you support getting it repealed?

Send me a petition, I'll sign it.

I just might do that. In the meantime, please write letters to your local paper, to your congressmen, and the president, asking them to work towards a repeal of the 86 ban, in light of the Heller decision. You don't have to wait around for others to start a petition before you get in the game.

Quote:
They use the same parts. They have the same bolt. You sure don't seem to know that much about firearms.

They use SOME of the same parts but not all. You don't seem to know much about them either

The vast majority of the parts used are exactly the same. There are only minor differences in very few parts required to make the M16 a full auto and the AR15 a semiauto only. You said there was no relation between those two firearms. They are very closely related. The differences are minor, but the M16 can fire more than one round per trigger pull. That's the only difference. My point stands that the two guns are closely related and the AR15 was also designed for military use.

Quote:
There should still have been enough people who owned them to allow normal statistics to come into play.

I don't believe anywhere near enough people had them to be statistically significant. Other than gangsters. The is not much of a historic tradition of full auto/rocket launcher ownership.

If more than 100K people owned them, and you had just 2% of those owners use their full autos for criminal purposes, then you'd have had 2000 crimes committed with full autos. I fully believe that there were more than 100K owners not including criminals. It was the criminals who were using these guns for nefarious purposes. I have read of no history of law abiding people having accidents with full auto or using their full autos in the commission of crimes. Maybe you can point to some history. There are close to 186K full autos in the registry today. Certainly, there are owners who have more than one, so there is not 186K full auto owners. But let's assume there are 100K. Then, statistically, my example would be accurate. How many owners of full auto firearms do you believe there are, "legally" speaking. How many owners of full auto are there who "illegally" own them. We know the Chinese were smuggling full auto AK47's into California. They happened to catch a shipment of them. How many came in before they caught them? How many have come in since?

Quote:
Agreed. However, for full auto, I'd be willing to make all sales go through an FFL for an instant check. In exchange, I'd make the goverment drop the "transfer" fee. That is one area where we might find a comprimise.

I am beginning to like the sound of this more. However, I would want registration of them as well.

When you do a background check through an FFL, you have registration. It's called the 4473. If you require all full auto transactions to go through an FFL with an instant background check, you'll have defacto registration of full autos.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You said there was no relation between those two firearms.

I said they are different weapons. As while yes they use almost all of the same parts the critical difference in operation is significant and makes the M-16 quite somethig more than the AR-15 which is a civilian adaptation. Not unlike the Thompson semi-autos you can buy today.

How many owners of full auto firearms do you believe there are, "legally" speaking.

Don't know but since there is little crime from them I expect one could say the NFA works.

How many owners of full auto are there who "illegally" own them.

No idea. Not really sure what that means though. I suspect if we repealed the NFA and the 86 amendment the prices would come way down quick and there would be a lot more of them out there legally and well as a new and exciting market for rocket and grenade launchers that would emerge. Anyway, all those held illegally would then become legal unless the person owning them was prohibited from owning firearms by other laws.

When you do a background check through an FFL, you have registration. It's called the 4473. If you require all full auto transactions to go through an FFL with an instant background check, you'll have defacto registration of full autos.

I thought those things were destroyed or deleted after so many days. I know the FFL keeps them but I would want the ATF to keep them centrally. Also, isn't there a LEO sign off as well?

 

[USAFNoDak]

An untrained, unorganized group of people with no established legal leadership who has access to all types of military weapons and answers to no authority until after the fact is a mob and something all citizens should fear.

I would say that civilians, who are part of the unorganized militia, should be able to own the same weaponry as a national guard troop, who is part of the organized militia, is given before he goes into a combat zone. However, I don't believe that civilians can form their own self governing groups of private armies. They can train with their weapons as individuals, and fire them on a range pr private property where it is safe to do so. However, before they take any "legal" action as a group, they must be called out by a government authority, such as a local sheriff, the governor of the state, or an appropriate federal official, that most likely being the President. When called forth, they should bring their weapons which are in common use by the militia, including the organized militia, at the time. They will fall under the authority of the local officers of the militia, and are to carry out orders from those officers, as the members of the organized militia are required to do.

However, all civilians should also be able to own weapons which are useful for self defense, hunting, and other lawful activities. Thus, they are not limited to owning only guns which can be useful for militia duties.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I said they are different weapons.

No. You said there was no relationship between the AR15 and the M16. If you had merely said that they are different weapons, I would have agreed with you. They even use different model numbers. There's a reason for that. One is semiauto and one if capable of full auto. Thus, they are different. However, they are very closely related, which you said they were not. The AR15 was designed for military use. You also said that weapons designed for military use, such as the M16, should not be protected by the Second Amendment. But, the AR15 was also designed for military use, yet you are fine with owning such a firearm.

I'll ask you again, since you seem unwilling or unable to come up with a logical answer. Why is the M16 more dangerous for a civilian to have than an AR15? Why is an M16 built prior to 1986 less dangerous than one made after 1986?

By the way, this is off topic from our current discussion but ties into it nicely. The other day, I heard Jessie Jackson on the Lars Larson radio show. I'm not sure if it was a live interview or not since I tuned in during the middle. However, Lars asked the Rev. Jackson if he was pleased with the ruling in the Heller case, being as he was a supporter of civil rights. Jackson, of course, said he was very upset by the ruling because we now have semiautomatic guns being legal again, such as the AK47 and the M16. WHAT A KNOT HEAD!

My question to myself, was, is he really that stupid, or is he a liar of the worst sort? I believe it's a combination of both.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I thought those things were destroyed or deleted after so many days. I know the FFL keeps them but I would want the ATF to keep them centrally. Also, isn't there a LEO sign off as well?

4473's must be kept on file for 20 years, or until the FFL decides to go out of business. I believe he must turn over his books to the BATFE once he goes out of business, but I could be mistaken on that. Maybe someone will clarify the process for us. Why does the ATF need to keep those files? If someone uses a full auto or any gun to commit a crime, and the gun is recovered, it can be traced to the FFL who originally sold it by serial number. Now, if the gun has been stolen or has been "privately" sold, the trail might be cold. However, if you required all full auto transactions to be conducted through an FFL, the way we require interstate sales of handguns to go through an FFL in each state, then, you'd have defacto full auto registration. I'm willing to go there for now, provided we eliminate the 86 ban and drop the transfer fee. Can we agree on that, TG?

I'm not sure what your question is regarding LEO sign off. Do you mean during the instant check process? If so, there is no required LEO sign off. Do you mean the transfer of a full auto? If so, I'm not sure if you need local LEO sign off. I thought it was the BATFE doing the background check through the FBI with fingerprinting. I've never tried to transfer a full auto, so I'm no expert on the procedure.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:
How many owners of full auto are there who "illegally" own them.

No idea. Not really sure what that means though. I suspect if we repealed the NFA and the 86 amendment the prices would come way down quick and there would be a lot more of them out there legally and well as a new and exciting market for rocket and grenade launchers that would emerge. Anyway, all those held illegally would then become legal unless the person owning them was prohibited from owning firearms by other laws.

I'm just trying to surmise what the real ownership rate is out there, combined legal plus illegal ownership. If there are 10K "illegal" owners out there, and those people don't commit crimes with them, then is it the NFA that's working or is it normally law abiding citizens owning guns, which you say are too dangerous for civilian use, proving you wrong. I said "normally" law abiding, even though they are breaking the law, because while they don't believe the government needs to know they have such firearms, they would not use such firearms to commit crimes.

Plus, it shouldn't matter how many owners are either "legal" or "illegal" under the NFA. If those guns are so dangerous for civilian use, as you claim, then there should be accidents and crimes being committed with those guns. The NFA has nothing to do with stopping accidents or stopping someone from committting a crime with a full auto firearm. I think the lack of any statistics PROVES that civilians can be trusted with full auto firearms. All the NFA does is tell the BATFE who has them at any particular moment in time and provides them with a $200.00 tax revenue if the gun is sold. If someone is really intent on committing a crime with one, I doubt he's going to worry about his name being on the register, because he'd have a whole lot more problems if and when he is caught.

I don't see any market for rocket and grenade launchers emerging. That sounds more like fear mongering.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
if an impartial court were allowed to hear both sides of the argument, I think Miller may have turned out quite differently.

Unsupported speculation.

And it is presented as nothing more than such hence the qualifier "I think."

Quote:
That is nothing more than your opinion, an opinion which the majority of those posting here do not share.

Unsupported speculation.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2562

Quote:
My fear is that if other gun owners hear nothing but defeatist attitudes like yours and appeasment agendas like yours then they will too easily accept further erosion of our rights.

Opinion not backed up by any facts.

Presented as opinion and nothing more.

Quote:
The Luger and Mauser C96 were the first successful semi-auto pistols that I'm aware of and both were heavily marketed to the military. The Mondragon Rifle was the first successful semi-automatic rifle and was used by German Aircraft crews during WWI.

Documentation?

http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg90-e.htm

The C-96 had been offered for the German Military but failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luger_P08_pistol#Service

The design was patented by Georg Luger in 1898 and produced by German arms manufacturer Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) starting in 1900

The Swiss Army evaluated the Luger pistol in 7.65 mm P (.30 Luger in USA) and adopted it in 1900 as its standard sidearm, designated Ordonnanzpistole 00 or OP00, in 1900.

Quote:
That is the key difference but does not illustrate a complete lack of relation. Try again.

Relation is irrelavent. They are different weapons.

An explanation as to the complete lack of relation was asked for and you failed to provide it. I suspect you can't so you're dodging the question now.

Quote:
Quote:
Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934Few if any owned them. See my previous posts.

Yet more poorly or completely unsupported speculation.

Read previous posts where links were provided.

And those links are examples of poorly documented speculation

Quote:
Yeah I understand the way some hunters feel but that is changing as people who shoot are about the same number as those who hunt.

Unsupported speculation.

You should listen to Michael Bane's podcast.

Have a link?

Quote:
Asking to whom the members of the unorganised militia report does not cast onto doubt its existence. It simply illustrates one facet of the word "unorganised".

Is that a "well-regulated militia"? Well regulated and unorganized don't go well together do they? What I think you are postulating is a mob with guns.

Scalia has already determined that 2A rights are not predicated on belonging to a militia organized or otherwise. It's an individual right, remember?

Quote:
I thought we were done talking about militias after the holding in Heller? Isn't militia membership now "unconnected" with 2nd amendment rights?

Agreed, but some folks are using that argument to justify why they should have access at military weapons without restriction.

That's because of the Miller decision and it's statement that weapons protected by 2A must be suitable for use by the militia. Since the weapons we're discussing are suitable for use by the organized militia (National Guard) then they should be protected by 2A.

Quote:
You said there was no relation between those two firearms.

I said they are different weapons. As while yes they use almost all of the same parts the critical difference in operation is significant and makes the M-16 quite somethig more than the AR-15 which is a civilian adaptation. Not unlike the Thompson semi-autos you can buy today.

taken directly from your own post

Quote:
Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation.

One is a machinegun the other is not. Pretty simple.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG, in post #244, you said this:

Military weapons are another issue altogether and have no relation tothe AR-15.

In post #247, I replied,

Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation.

In post #248 you responded with:

One is a machinegun the other is not. Pretty simple.

Then I replied:

You'd like it to be that simple, but it's not. They are of the same "design", TG. The same man, Eugene Stoner, designed the rifle. They both reload the next round in exactly the same fashion. They use the same parts. They have the same bolt. You sure don't seem to know that much about firearms.

You came back with:

They use SOME of the same parts but not all. You don't seem to know much about them either

Then Me:

The vast majority of the parts used are exactly the same. There are only minor differences in very few parts required to make the M16 a full auto and the AR15 a semiauto only. You said there was no relation between those two firearms. They are very closely related. The differences are minor, but the M16 can fire more than one round per trigger pull. That's the only difference. My point stands that the two guns are closely related and the AR15 was also designed for military use.

TG comes back with:

I said they are different weapons.

I'll repeat, No. You said they were not related. Now you've switched your claim to "they are different". But that's not what you originally claimed. That's being a little bit disingenuous in my book, TG.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However, if you required all full auto transactions to be conducted through an FFL, the way we require interstate sales of handguns to go through an FFL in each state, then, you'd have defacto full auto registration. I'm willing to go there for now, provided we eliminate the 86 ban and drop the transfer fee. Can we agree on that, TG?

Not completely. I don't think the 4473 is de facto registration. I think FFLs lose these things and I am not sure they are that easy to trace. I would have to go with a backgound check, federal BATFE registration and no undocumented transfers. I could be worng but I think when you buy a class 3 item you have to go to your local LEO and he has to sign off on it. Maybe somebody here could say. Anyway, I like that as it might keep a legal FA out the hands of the local kook, who might have a clean record otherwise. After that yeah take away the $200 except for explosive devices and the '86 ban as well and we might have a deal!

If those guns are so dangerous for civilian use, as you claim, then there should be accidents and crimes being committed with those guns.

There might be and the stats may not show it. we can only speculate. I could say that it is difficult to get thses weapons and that is why the crime/accident rates are low.

I don't see any market for rocket and grenade launchers emerging. That sounds more like fear mongering.

Reasonable fear since if the NFA were repealed they would be easier to get. Anyway, don't put too much faith in that background check, remember the two recent school shooters got by them even though they shouldn't have. And no it doesn't invalidate the background checks it just shows they aren't run well. Hoepfully, the latest legislation will help and the mental health lobby needs to be suppressed.

I would say that civilians, who are part of the unorganized militia, should be able to own the same weaponry as a national guard troop, who is part of the organized militia, is given before he goes into a combat zone.

I disagree. The unorganized militia is not the "well-regulated militia" put forth in the COTUS, it is only a pool of people who might be apart of that regualted militia. The Heller decision broke that code between militia participation and individual right to keep and bear arms in common use by cilivians. Anyway, according to the statute females and those over 45 aren't in. Go to the link I provided before to another above and read more about what the unorgnaized militia really is.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'll repeat, No. You said they were not related. Now you've switched your claim to "they are different". But that's not what you originally claimed. That's being a little bit disingenuous in my book, TG.

USAFNoDak,
I may have used the wrong word in this case. I think it is clear from my sentence that I was saying the AR-15 and the M-16 are different weapons. I am doing a lot of typing answering a lot of posts and you are picking nits. You are better than that! Save that for politicians.

I guess all firarms are related to one another in some way. Hell, maybe even knives are too. That was not what the OP was about it was about what firearms should be restricted and that was my context.

 

[publius42]

Agreed, but some folks are using that argument to justify why they should have access at military weapons without restriction.

Preserving an armed public is essential to preserving the ability to muster a citizen militia. And arguing against a ban is not the same as arguing for full access with no restrictions. It's just arguing against a ban.

BTW, the Hughes amendment really shouldn't be repealed. It should be overturned as unconstitutional.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Maybe somebody here could say. Anyway, I like that as it might keep a legal FA out the hands of the local kook, who might have a clean record otherwise. After that yeah take away the $200 except for explosive devices and the '86 ban as well and we might have a deal!

But if the local "kook" has a clean record, how will the local LEO be aware of him? My local sheriff would have no clue who I am. If I came in to purchase a full auto firearm, with my clean record, intent on killing a bunch of people, how would the sheriff know to turn me down? Are they issuing crystal balls to the county sheriffs and police chiefs now. Those guys don't meet their constitutuents very often, unless they are really small town types. But that's not typically where we have the problems with rampant crime. It's in big cities where the head LEO's don't spend time out amongst "the people". They spend their time on political and administrative meetings and duties for the most part.