Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Ah but how is anyone to know that Joe has done anything wrong until he uses his illegal machinegun? Does the 4th Amendment no longer apply?
The Joe you supplied in your scenario was an idiot. Idiots don't need more firepower. Joe needs to be in jail for "bump firing his weapon and killing innocent people.
But we can't arrest him and put him in jail until after he's done it. So, by your own logic, no control is exercised until after the fact. The point I was trying to make is that Joe can cause the same negative effect regardless of the regulation placed on full-auto, therefore the only effect that the regulation has is on those who already respect or fear the law anyway.
Quote:
Besides, those who currently own registered machineguns have little control exercised over their use of such weapons.
True, but they are under a spotlight and know that if they screw up they will be easy to find and have a lot to lose. Plus they have paid a lot of money for their hobby and aren't likely to abuse that priviledge. Someone like Joe, an idiot who bought his machine gun for $500 may not be so careful.
So is the fear of civil and criminal prosecution not sufficient? Certainly Joe will face one or both of these things should he use his weapon irresponsibly. The whole "because it's more expensive, it will make people more careful" argument is really grasping at straws, people do all sorts of stupid things with very expensive items every day.
Quote:
Then why did you bring him up?
I think somebody else did first. What difference does it make?
No, you did in post #277 with this statement
Reasonable fear since if the NFA were repealed they would be easier to get.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.
The reason I ask is because you use the case of Cho as an argument and then discount your own point by saying the only thing that will stop him is a bullet. Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
Quote:
Speaking of the Brady Campaign, you've been using quite a bit of their logic yourself:
So are you and others here by comparing an AR-15 to a M-16 and saying they are no different. That fuzzy thinking got the first AWB and will probably get another one. Also, the Brady's use scare tactics with the public by quoting folks like you who want civilians to have access to military weapons without restrictions.
Or they could use statement from gun owners like yourself and Jim Zumbo who say that "no one needs
that weapon." They could very easily sway politicians to do their bidding by saying "see, even the gun owners want to ban them." Actually, I agree with the Bradys that an AR-15 and M-16 aren't all that different but where we diverge is that they want to ban both while I oppose a ban on either. Besides, how much credibility with the general public do you think that the opinions of a couple of people posting anonymously on the internet is going to have? Quotes usually carry more weight when they're made by well-known, respected figures. I suspect that your repeated mention of the Brady campaign is little more than a scare tactic in an attempt to silence those that disagree with you.
Quote:
Whether an individual actually belongs to the National Guard is irrelevant according to Heller so long as his weapons are suitable for use by the National Guard.
I think that's what Miller said. Heller did not extend 2A protection to machineguns or other military weapons.
Nor did they deny it, they left the question quite open.
Quote:
What the Justices who ruled on Miller did, inadvertently I believe, was to create a venue for us to argue that military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment through trying to create their own loophole to uphold the NFA.
Not likely to happen but good luck! You need to look at the links I posted to Alan Gura's talk to the City Club of Cleveland. Illuminating.
Firstly, Alan Gura's number one priority is to win his client's case, upholding the constitution comes second. Secondly, Gura states that "So long as the government's regulation is an appropriate one, it's not an infringement." I have yet to see any argument to show that the government's current degree of regulation is appropriate. Also, he states that "My idea of a common sense gun regulation is going to be different than Sarah Brady's" and "everyone has their own conception of what common sense is, that's why I believe we need a strong standard of review, one that place upon the government the burden of regulating arms. One that reminds the legislature at all times that the law must have a compelling public interest and must be narrowly tailored so that it respects the people's right to have arms." So, by Gura's own words the government must provide a verifiable reason to ban something. They did not do this when the NFA was enacted and you have been able to provide anything but extremely unlikely hypothetical situations to support it.
Quote:
What it boils down to is that you've not convinced us that the military chain of command is necessary for civilian ownership of full-auto (it doesn't even exist under the NFA as it stands now).
Unrestricted ownership is the key you are missing. Webley, your mind is and has been made up and no argument or logic will convince you otherwise. We have been down that path already. By the same token, you have not convinced me that a) the NFA is unconstitutional or b) It should be repealed.
By the same token, you're mind is made up that because you percieve that no one needs a certain thing, the government has unlimited power to restrict it. You have yet to convince me that the NFA is constitutional or that it should not be repealed.
The right to self defense is adequately protected by access to weapons already in common use by civilians for lawful purposes.
Likewise most of us could probably get along just fine with a federal law banning the use of certain vulgar words. However, I doubt anyone would support such a law because it infringes upon the First Amendment. Besides, the constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms only for self-defense but for all lawful purposes.
But, at the end of the day and in your lifetime the NFA will probably still be there. I remember an Arab proverb from my time in the sandbox. The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.
The American public will not tolerate what you wish, unrestricted access to military weapons for civilians. I see no arguments you've posted here that will change that and the courts will not support your view as well. But, you are entitled to your opinion.
Neither you nor I can predict the future nor what the American public is prepared to tolerate. However, we can see from history that what the public will tolerate can and has changed as time goes on. I do not agree that the NFA being struck down or repealed is not within the realm of possibility.
Originally posted by YukonKid
We are allowed any car we want, I demand that they sell Lambos at the Kia dealership for the same price!!
I think you're missing the point, if HK wishes to sell their MP-5's for $20,000+ each I take no issue with it as they can try to sell their product for whatever they wish. However, the military and LE cost of a MP-5 is $10,000+ less that the price for a transferrable example. Part of what we're taking issue with is the government's artificial inflation of prices through over-regulation.
