2nd Amendment Regulation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not need a full auto, no one does.
Click to expand...

Nor do you need your Yukon nor do I need my BMW (my Honda gets me from point A to point B quite efficiently). Why should I have to need something in order to have it?

Like you said, any activity that is done with a weapon can be done with something better suited for the task than a full auto, the thing they do best is kill...that is not arguable.
Click to expand...

Could the same not be said about all guns? Is a shotgun not intended to kill game or in your case someone who invades your home? What my BMW does best is travel at high speeds, does that mean it's useless for traveling at low ones? What your 4x4's do best is travel off road, does that mean they're useless for going down the interstate?

Not hunting, not target shooting, not clays or bulls-eye, just for killing.
Click to expand...

They could quite easily be used for any one of those purposes. Is killing someone or something in self-defense not a valid purpose?

I do not even understand what the fuss is about, you can still go out and buy one, so go do it if you want one that bad or feel that strongly.
Click to expand...

The "fuss" is about the fact that I have to pay the government, provide information that is none of the government nor anyone else's business, and get a special permission slip to exersise my constitutional right.
 
well, I do not intend on walking to work, so I need a car (or my CBR) to get there, it does not really matter what I drive. As for your gib about driving on the interstate, my 05' Jeep rubicon is lifted 5.5 inches, my 01' Yukon 6 + 2 inch coil-overs and my '02 Silverado is currently at about 12" (straight axle conversion necessary, all suspension on all vehicles...body lifts are for rednecks :barf:) so I can honestly say that non of them perform well at interstate driving. Back to guns, the point of the forum.

I fail to see the point about self defence...isn't it still killing? It is killing with a legally supported reason but it is still killing.

What information do you have to provide, please help me here as i have never bothered looking at full autos, although if someone gave me a convincing reason to buy one I am sure I would. I would like to know what kinds of things you need to tell the regulators in order to own a "chopper"

YK
 
I fail to see the point about self defence...isn't it still killing? It is killing with a legally supported reason but it is still killing.
Click to expand...

My point about self-defense is that it is indeed killing. Killing, in the case of self-defense or hunting, is not necessarily bad or evil so the fact that a full-auto is made for killing doesn't mean that it should be more strictly regulated than any other type of firearm since that's what they're all essentially made for (as Tennessee Gentleman was so eager to point out).

What information do you have to provide, please help me here as i have never bothered looking at full autos, although if someone gave me a convincing reason to buy one I am sure I would. I would like to know what kinds of things you need to tell the regulators in order to own a "chopper"
Click to expand...

While I am not as knowledgeable as others, the gun make, model, and serial number is registered with the federal government as well as the personal information of the owner (name, adress, etc.). In addition, it is required to get the transfer approved by the local chief law enforcement officer (who may deny it for reasons that a normal firearm purchase can't be denied for) and pay a federal tax every time the gun is transferred.
 
The Smith & Wesson Web Cam


Keep an eye on it, after all, it's "inherently dangerous." You never know when it might cause some "gun violence."

Should we regulate guns like we do cars?
Click to expand...
I would be tickled pink if they rolled back gun law to such a massive degree such that guns were treated just like cars are.

- No background check, waiting period, or other rigmarole for purchase.
- Can purchase via eBay
- Can purchase for cash, no ID.
- Can purchase a car capable of double or triple the speed limit for cash.
- Can purchase as many per month as you can afford.
- No license needed for purchase.
- No license or training needed to operate on private property.
- All licensing valid in all 50 states and the territories.
- Possession permitted on the property of any business.
- Convenient storage provided free of charge at most businesses.
- Inexpensive insurance for accidental injury and property damage arising from use in public.
- No restrictions on transporting from one state to the next.
 
Web: Don't you have to do most of that to get a job? To get a CCL? And why should it matter if you have nothing to hide. I have nothing about me that the feds can't see, and any law abiding citizen who wants to buy one should not have a problem with it either, its just a step in the process. only people who have something they don't want the government to see should take up issue with it. I have to do all the checks and finger prints and address ect. In OR when I buy a new gun. The only thing I can see to maybe complain about is the chief of police notification.

mvpel: nice smith, I don't think it is going anywhere soon. I would like you to point out where I said that guns pick themselves up and shoot people. I have never said that nor will I, guns are just tools, simply inanimate objects.

The point I am trying to raise is that no one can ever give me a logical reason as to why they need a full auto firearm. The only thing it does better than any other (and less expensive) firearm is killing people.

YK
 
It also shreds cardboard boxes downrange better than any other firearm.

Besides, you keep talking about "need" as if it has any remote relationship to anything relevant to the proper role of government or the Constitution.

The point I am trying to raise is that no one can ever give me a logical reason as to why they need a full auto firearm. The only thing it does better than any other (and less expensive) firearm is killing people.
Click to expand...
So what? What's your point? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
 
mvpel, I don't think there really is a point. The point is that you are not going to budge on your views and your "rights" and I am a logical person looking for logical reasons. This is a passionate argument to some of you who clearly believe that it is your right to do and own whatever you want in this country.

the word "need" plays a huge role in everything, especially legal cases. So do the words "reasonable" and "doubt."

Right now there is nothing stopping you apart from your finances and any past record you might have from buying a Class III weapon. I could go out and do it tomorrow (maybe not because its sunday and things are closed but you get the point) if I choose to but I am not. I do not have a logical reason to own a fully automatic combat rifle, I do not kill people. Give me some reasons...

You said "So what? What's your point? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?" and I would say yes, because I believe that killing people is wrong and you would most likely go to prison for it (excluding professionals, who might still see killing as wrong...necessary sometimes but still wrong).

YK
 
What is steel, compared to the hand that wields it?

call me crazy AMP 44 but I believe that it might be easier to kill a mass amount of people with a full auto then a box cutter,
Click to expand...

And how soon we forget.

Seoptember 11, 2001

A handful of fanatics with box cutters killed over 3,000 people, in a single morning.

The weapon is nothing, it is the will that matters.

No machine guns, not even a single pistol. Just sharp slivers of metal and single minded determination to kill.

Tell me again how gun control laws make us safe.
 
Web: Don't you have to do most of that to get a job? To get a CCL? And why should it matter if you have nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

An employer is not required by federal law to ask such questions outside of certain jobs (i.e. healthcare, law enforcement, etc.). If I feel that my employer is asking invasive questions, I am free to seek employment elsewhere or to seek a different profession. If I feel that the federal government is asking invasive questions, I have nowhere else to turn as there is only one federal government in this country. As far as a CCL is concerned, I personally don't think that a law abiding citizen should need to have a license to carry a gun. If the person is not law abiding, then chances are they would be prohibited from buying a gun anyway. Besides, I very highly doubt that a criminal intent on commiting a violent crime is all that worried about whether or not it is legal for him to carry the weapon he plans on using to commit said crime. It is not that I have anything to hide, but rather the principle of the matter. So long as I have no criminal record nor any history of mental illness, why should I have to provide private information about my property to the government? It is not that I have anything to hide (if I did, I probably wouldn't pass the background check required to buy a firearm anyway), but rather that the details of my property that are not public record are no one else's business. Would you have a problem with the police searching your house without a warrant? Afterall, what difference does it make if you have nothing to hide? If the founding father felt this way, we wouldn't have the 4th Amendment.

The point I am trying to raise is that no one can ever give me a logical reason as to why they need a full auto firearm. The only thing it does better than any other (and less expensive) firearm is killing people.
Click to expand...

The point I am trying to make is that I shouldn't have to provide a reason to need a full-auto firearm. So long as I don't do anything illegal with it, my reasons for owning it are no one else's business.

This is a passionate argument to some of you who clearly believe that it is your right to do and own whatever you want in this country.
Click to expand...

So long as what I want to do neither infringes upon the rights of nor harms anyone else (which owning a full-auto firearm does neither) then yes, I do believe that it's my right to do whatever I want.

the word "need" plays a huge role in everything, especially legal cases. So do the words "reasonable" and "doubt."
Click to expand...

So do the words "probable cause" and "burden of proof." Because the burden of proof lies upon the government (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) and I have nothing in my past to show probable cause towards violent tendencies, why should I be prohibited or severely restricted from something that puts no one in danger?

Right now there is nothing stopping you apart from your finances and any past record you might have from buying a Class III weapon. I could go out and do it tomorrow (maybe not because its sunday and things are closed but you get the point) if I choose to but I am not. I do not have a logical reason to own a fully automatic combat rifle, I do not kill people. Give me some reasons...
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem. I shouldn't have to give you or anyone else a reson other than "because I want one and I can afford one." So long as what I do with my property is not illegal, it's my business and mine alone.

You said "So what? What's your point? Is that supposed to be a bad thing?" and I would say yes, because I believe that killing people is wrong and you would most likely go to prison for it (excluding professionals, who might still see killing as wrong...necessary sometimes but still wrong).
Click to expand...

So is killing someone who breaks into your home to do you harm wrong? That is killing a person and a fully-automatic weapon can be used to do it. Is it that a fully-automatic weapon can only be used to kill people or are they equally deadly to animals as well? Perhaps I want the weapon to perform pest control on my property or perhaps I want it just to blow holes in an old car hood just for recreation. It doesn't really matter so long as I'm not commiting a violent crime with it. A sword's only purpose is to kill people too but I don't hear anyone having to justify owning a sword.
 
Your so hostile. I am just trying to have a discussion, it does not have to get heated.

Forget the job thing, I just surrendered my name, address, SS#, DOB and medication list in order to settle into a career job. I didn't mind doing it and i am happy with the pay-check it is earning me, I guess thats the trade off. The firm would have hired someone else if I had refused my information because that shows a lot about me, being belligerent and stubborn before I ever even started work.

As far as police entering my home without a search warrant or probable cause i don't think they would...because they would have no probable cause in the first place. But I would show them in and be a good host, maybe crack a few cold ones and watch whatever game is on TV.

You don't have to prove anything to me. I am a SN on the internet that you are getting riled up about. I don't care what you do, who you are or what you buy. Thats your business, go buy an M-16, I am not stopping you and neither is the government. No one is in your way, you can do it if you choose, it might be expensive and maybe a bit complicated but it is possible, it is legal. So it sounds to me that your complaining that you can't go down to the gun store, slap some cash down on the counter, never even give a name and walk out with an M-16 and 2,000 rounds of ammo. Is that correct?

As far as hunting with an M-16 that is ridiculous and illegal. I said killing is wrong, not that it doesn't happen and not that I would abstain from killing someone who was going to do me harm. I already said that, please read the posts more closely ;)

just for wpcexpert: Touche' (although I believe that it was brains that really did the damage that day, and fear played a big role)

YK
 
Last edited:
Quote:
There has never been a time in our history when fully automatic weapons were banned to the citizen by the federal government. It would be difficult to assert at this late date that suddenly there is a CSI to deny ownership.
I have never asserted such. I have only said that the 2A does not protect the right of civilians to own full auto and their owning such may be regulated. The NFA does not ban full auto so your argument starts out on the wrong premise.
Click to expand...

Quote:
The transfer tax under the NFA was meant to be prohibitive and does not serve a CSI. Why doesn't it serve a CSI? Based on what criteria?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I laid out the analysis as to why. I am sorry that you did grasp the legal argument and somehow mistook it as a characterization of your position. I think that was a case of you projecting your style of argument. Perhaps you should, as is generally required to the proponent of a restriction under strict scrutiny review, how a tax or a freeze or both, serves a CSI, is narrowly tailored, and is the least restrictive means necessary. Such an analysis should be more than saying "full auto bad" repeatedly as you've done here so far. It gets tiresome trying to do legal exposition if you continue to give knee-jerk responses devoid of legal reasoning.
 
Your so hostile. I am just trying to have a discussion, it does not have to get heated.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be hostile, I'm just merely providing points and counterpoints. I enjoy a lively discussion as much as the next person, but I agree there's no reason to get emotional about it. As we've all heard before "It's just the internet, it isn't real:p"

Forget the job thing, I just surrendered my name, address, SS#, DOB and medication list in order to settle into a career job. I didn't mind doing it and i am happy with the pay-check it is earning me, I guess thats the trade off. The firm would have hired someone else if I had refused my information because that shows a lot about me, being belligerent and stubborn before I ever even started work.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's the tradeoff but you didn't have to surrender that information to them in order to exercise any constitutional right. Unfortuneately, when it comes to full-auto we can either surrender private information above and beyond what is necessary to do a background check or be denied part of our constitutional rights, we have no other options.

As far as police entering my home without a search warrant or probable cause i don't think they would...because they would have no probable cause in the first place. But I would show them in and be a good host, maybe crack a few cold ones and watch whatever game is on TV.
Click to expand...

While that's a prudent course of action to remove suscpicion from yourself, can we agree that they have no right to enter your home without invitation, probable cause, or a warrant?

You don't have to prove anything to me. I am a SN on the internet that you are getting riled up about. I don't care what you do, who you are or what you buy. Thats your business, go buy an M-16, I am not stopping you and neither is the government. No one is in your way, you can do it if you choose, it might be expensive and maybe a bit complicated but it is possible, it is legal. So it sounds to me that your complaining that you can't go down to the gun store, slap some cash down on the counter, never even give a name and walk out with an M-16 and 2,000 rounds of ammo. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct. I have no problem whatsoever giving the required information to do a background check just like any other firearm. Unfortunately, buying a machinegun is much more complicated and unnecessarily expensive (i.e. the special NFA stamp you have to pay, not the price of the gun itself) than buying any other firearm for no good reason that I can see.

As far as hunting with an M-16 that is ridiculous and illegal. I said killing is wrong, not that it doesn't happen and not that I would abstain from killing someone who was going to do me harm. I already said that, please read the posts more closely
Click to expand...

You're getting hung up on the example and not the point. The point is that there's no good reason for me not to own an M16 should I desire and be able to afford one so long as I have a clean record. If you carefully re-read my posts, you'll see that I repeatedly qualify my statement with "so long as it's not illegal," or "so long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else." Obviously few people would choose a machinegun to hunt with nor would it be legal in many areas, the point is that a machinegun can be used for purposes besides murder. As far as the statements about killing, I do not believe that killing is necessarily wrong. I believe that murder is wrong, but as has been pointed out, not all killing is murder. I understand that you believe in self-defense and that you can make the distinction between self-defense and murder, however it did not seem as though you fully grasped that just because a gun is made to kill does not mean it was made to murder.
 
Yukon, I just want to point out that your statement about "not worrying, because one has nothing to hide" is probably the most dangerous statement any citizen can make regarding government involvement.

Relate that to your following post where you mentioned police entering, and searching your home without a warrant. You have nothing to hide, you're a good tax paying citizen, a Christian, etc. etc. so why not let them do it?

Going back to my original post I made about three pages ago, this is again about the principle of the matter. The point here is that we have to be subject to an intrusion prior to any criminal act, as in, just wanting to purchase firearms is a criminal act in itself.

Should select fire arms be more difficult to obtain? I would initially say no, but I'll bow down for a "maybe" at this point in the discussion. However, prohibiting new manufacture and ownership post 1986 is wrong. Having to pay the ATF $200 when you want these "extra dangerous" items is wrong. The resulting price hike due to the infringement on their ownership is also wrong. Is it legal to own one? Yes, for a little while longer, but since no one can have a newly manufactured one (exception for special circumstances), parts will wear out, parts will run out, and your firearm will be useless, and worthless, even though you probably paid more than what it costs to make the gun (because of the restriction).

Also, on the issue of "necessity". Since you say to Webley that you don't see a "need" for anyone to own a select fire weapon, take that one step further and look through the eyes of an anti gun person. They don't see the "need" for anyone to own any firearm. Do you see where this is going?

This isn't paranoia, like I already pointed out, there is a new AWB in the works, and there is always a bill being written, or being floated around. It is only a matter of time before it gets passed, and it becomes permanent. I mean, it has happened before...

Since, you see yourself as a reasonable person and believe select fire weapons are extra dangerous, again, look through the eyes of an anti, they see semi auto firearms that have physical characteristics of their military cousins as being "extra dangerous", hence the incorrectly termed "assault weapons" you hear, see, and read about in the media.

All it takes is one little step to get those rifles banned. Real assault weapons are too dangerous, weapons that "look" like assault weapons but function differently are too dangerous, then eventually, anything that fires a projectile is too dangerous. How long before the day we become like Britain where the mere mention of a firearm is too dangerous? How about wearing a t-shirt with an animated character wielding a fake cartoon cannon too dangerous?

Do you know that Britain is working on banning kitchen knives? Oh my...I think I've got a great entrepreneurial idea...I'm going to make bubbles! I'll sell man size, portable, fully enclosed bubbles for the British ! That way, they won't have to have any contact with the outside world, which of course, is dangerous.
 
I guess we are not different Web, I just feel that the average citizen has no use for a battle weapon and you do and thats ok, we can agree to disagree.

I am glad I traded off those things for a job who signed a piece of paper to protect them. I do not know what the rest of you do for money, but everywhere that I have worked at has asked for information from me, and I have always given it because I like working and like making lots of money.

Yes I agree with you on the cops entering thing. Being accommodating and polite is the right and smartest thing to do but I would not enjoy it and they have no right to do so without a warrant, probable cause, ect.

I do not think a menial $200 stamp should affect anything, that is less than it would cost to shoot for 5 minutes and 1/75 of the cost of the weapon. Lets be real. If your buying an auto in the first place another $200 that may help keep the weapon out of bad peoples hands is not a big deal.

As far as killing vs. murder thats slippery, I don't really know how to touch on that. There is a difference between killing and murder, just like there is a difference between what weapons were designed for what. I don't know how to define murder and imagine that webster could not help me this time so i will let you provide one if you choose.

YK :)
 
Now for CGSteve8718 :)

I am going to choose not to be offended about the "good Christian" poke and move on to weapons. I said i have nothing to hide and rather than possible get in trouble for "obstructing justice" or some bs charge like that I would let them come in because I do not have anything to hide. I think we can move away from this scenario as it really has nothing to do anything.

Anti's can say I have no need for guns and I can honestly admit that I really don't. I have about 20 firearms right now and can say that I don't NEED any of them. I enjoy shooting and hunting, its fun and gets me outside with my buddies. I am not paranoid, I do not think people are coming to get me and that I always need to be carrying, being a reasonable person I find the people who put guns in their bathrooms laughable...look at the statistics of people who actually get in gun fights and you will see what I mean. Not that I would give them up willingly but I am not going to disobey the law. I don't NEED guns, but they sure are fun.

I guess if you don't like Americas gun laws you can either try to change them, live with them or leave. Since no other country has gun laws like here leaving is stupid so either change them or live with them. I am quite happy with the way things are run right now so I can just sit back and watch.

YK
 
I do not think a menial $200 stamp should affect anything, that is less than it would cost to shoot for 5 minutes and 1/75 of the cost of the weapon. Lets be real. If your buying an auto in the first place another $200 that may help keep the weapon out of bad peoples hands is not a big deal.
Click to expand...

The problem is not the cost of the stamp nor the paperwork. The problem of restraint on the ownership of arms is that acceptance of such restraint as well as restraint of other similar freedom sets up the nation to accept formation and subsequent formalization of two classes. Do you really want a country where there are serfs/lords or plebians/patricians or slaves/freemen? We're moving into an historical time when 'bad people' will be composed of both real criminals and political prisoners whose crimes include possession of high capacity flush toilets, possession of cars whose catalytic converters are broken, possession of incandescent lights and shooting polar bears a minute before they've actually been eaten by same. :eek:
 
Just because something is not popular or unlikely doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for.
Click to expand...

Fight all you want to on this board. The NFA ain't going away in your lifetime and in my opinion there are far more worthy things to fight for than civilians owning full auto and explosive military weapons (the reference equating slavery with full auto regulation is far out and almost offensive).

Interesting debate. Same stuff pretty much I have heard before. However, as Alan Gura said, outside of the gun community (and I think the extreme end of it) there is no public support for the unrestricted ownership of full auto and other pure military weapons.

For myself and I feel, many others who own and love guns, you will get no support on that issue. Nothing any of you have said have made me change my mind and I suspect it is true for others who are lurking and don't want to put up with the sophistry. As I said before, better find out what you have in common with most gun owners and fight for what you can win. Unrestricted ownership of all types of military weapons won't and shouldn't happen.
 
TG, I to found the equation between slavery and full auto ownership appalling.

Ok MeekandMild, seems like your joining a bit late but lets get up to speed.
I think your allusions to medieval times is silly, as there is no way to turn back time and with our Global economy these days we already have serfs, they just live in other nations. People in the US are the "lords" you speak of. We have a higher standard of living of any country ever. Reflect on that. You and I sit here debating whether you should get $200 off the cost of a full auto battle rifle while somewhere a long way away a child in another country is going to work for pennies making the next pair of cleats I will buy. Put it in context. There...now you have read what i have said down to here and maybe put an ounce of thought into it.

I woke this morning and nothing had happened, there was no civil war, no violence in my city, no uprising...everything was peaceful. As I get into bed now I fully expect to wake up just like that tomorrow. If for some reason things have changed then I guess I will just have to be "undergunned"

YK
 
I didn't mean any offense by throwing Christian in there. I was making a overly exaggerated example of all the things perceived in being a "good" citizen.

TG, I have read the Heller case, and in it, "our" side actually does state that select fire weapons serves the entire purpose of the militia, which we are supposed to be. It went something to the effect of, "I don't see how we can ban a category of arms that are essential/necessary for militia use". However, he chose not to delve down that path, because this is not what the particular argument is about.

Yukon, sure statistics may show you that the odds of actually "needing" a firearm are slim, but I'm sure someone who did need it and used it was sure glad they had it, and someone who needed it and was barred from having one is surely very upset (if he can still be upset) that he was prohibited from owning one to fulfill a false utilitarian viewpoint.

My brother alone has "needed" a firearm three times in his life.

In your response, I don't think you envisioned going down that slippery slope, about the very real possibility of a massive and sweeping firearms ban. I don't think they'll be bold enough to come and get them, but any new ownership will be illegal. They may ask for a volunteer turn in, and again, judging from your response that you only have them for fun, you wouldn't be too disappointed.

In my responses, I don't really see myself as being too "radical", and I'm really not trying to be. It pains me though that the two of you are not the least bit moved, and fail to see that critical next step. If society was fine without the MG ban up until 1986, it'd be just as fine without it today. The real problem with the majority of the street crime is the direct and indirect cause of something else entirely (drugs), but getting into that one will require another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top