2nd Amendment Regulation

[USAFNoDak]

Well this discussion seems to be over. Good, responsible, law abiding gun owners and hunters like me are now being called "anti's" by the extremists in our small shooting community just because we do not feel that any one should be able to go buy an M-16.

I follow the laws, they are there for a reason, speed limits are designed to keep people safe, gun laws are the same. I am not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of people who don't even own full autos and cannot give me an reasons why they should have them or need them. There is nothing stopping you this minute from buying one other than your own finances, so take out a second mortgage on your house or trailer or whatever and go out and buy one (be sure to complain extra loud about the $200 tax, thats not even 2 full tanks of gas)

I have nothing else to say here, there is no point arguing with people who don't listen and cannot be reasonable. If anyone wishes to PM me in order to continue arguing that would be great, but I do not want to cluttle this firearms board with bickering anymore. I realize that you are all as fed up with me as I am with you and I hope that we can reach an agreement. I agree to disagree with you guys If there is ever a government enslavement of the people I am sure I will be able to make do just fine with my 24 (counted them last night ) firearms and will not be wishing I have bought an M-16

Thank you for your time and opinions

YK

I was not one who called you an anti. I hope I was not included in your group whom you called "extremists". TG called people extremists and idealogues. Tossing labels out there when you can't convince people to join your side of the debate will never win you a debate. You'll just end up leaving after having tossed out those labels and the debate will continue without you. I respect your opinion that no one "needs" a full auto firearm. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. You don't appear to respect other peoples opinions who disagree with you. I don't see why any law abiding citizen should have to provide and prove a "need" to be able to own any select fire firearms. If I can own an AR15, why shouldn't I be trusted with an M16? If I can own a class 3 weapon made before 1986, why shouldn't I be trusted with one made in 1987 or later? To me, that seems unreasonable.

According to your own statements, you don't appear to have a problem with people owning full autos, as long as they can afford them. Is that a correct take on your view? If that's your view, then why would you support the ban which took effect in 1986 that says we cannot own any full autos imported or manufactured after 1986? That seems to be a conflicting issue in your views, if I am taking them correctly.

I welcome your debate. I will not resort to labeling or name calling. I may argue that you are taking the same side as some anti gun folks take, but that is not necessarily to say that I believe you are an anti. Just as I am not an extremist or idealogue, even if some of my positions may appear that way to others.

I am a law abiding citizen for the most part, like yourself. I do occasionally drive faster than the speed limit and I did toss a CFL bulb in the regular garbage because I didn't have time to run to the hazmat recycling drop off. But, for the most part, I follow the laws. I disagree with some of the laws, and am actively working to change them. This was my point about slavery as CGSteve8718 so accurately described. Thanks to CGSteve8718 for looking at the issue in context.

Slavery was once the law. Women not being able to vote or own property was once the law. Bans on carrying concealed weapons in many states was once the law. People worked within the law to change those laws. In the case of slavery, we ended up going to war with each other. I don't see that happening with firearms rights, but one never knows. No one has a crystal ball which is 100% accurate in predicting the future.

I don't see another civil war on the horizon. However, a liberal politician, who was once VP of this nation, had a very wise view on the Second Amendment. Google "Hubert H. Humphrey and the Second Amendment" if you are not aware of his public statement. I'm not saying that HHH would be all for repealing the NFA, but he provides some wisdom anyway. Some of us believe we should be trusted with full autos of any year, if we can be trusted with full autos from pre 1986, supposing we can pay for one. Some of the antis (not calling you one) don't believe we should be trusted with handguns as they are used in killing more people than any other type of firearm. Some antis don't think we should be trusted with semiauto firearms that look military in nature. Some antis don't think we should have guns which hold more than 5 shots. They typically base their arguements on what we really "need". That's a slippery slope. When fellow gun owners agree to embrace that slippery slope, I get a little nervous.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Here is HHH's quote, in case some folks can't find it via their favorite search engine.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959


There are a lot of other great quotes from our founders and other influential people at that website.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Hate to see you guys leave this site just because we disagree on full auto prohibitions.

I haven't left the site. Just the argument. No more points for me to make now. This thread will come up again and I may post. My other pet peeve is the "mall ninja lets go shoot somebody mentality" I see sometimes in the Tactics forum and I post strongly there as well.

As to me being an extremist when it comes to the 2nd Amendment? You and TG are correct. I am a very strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment. I simply believe it is the right that protects all other rights and protects our country from invaders.

I am not an extremist in anything (other than college football. My favorite saying is that the only society where you have unrestricted rights is in anarchy and only then if you have the power to exercise them. I am not a libertarian but that's just me.
I do want to say that you continued references to slavery, women voting, etc relating to unrestricted military weapons ownership is a poor analogy IMHO. I'm sorry but I don't think the unrestricted access to all military wespons cause is that particularly noble and I don't buy the slippery slope issue regarding NFA.

Now, some other laws perhaps, but not that one and I think that full autos being restricted for over 70 years without significant gun banning following is a evidence of that. Actually, I think in many cases our rights have grown. I couldn't carry a concealed weapon in TN when I turned 21 and now I can! Now, that's something I would fight for

However, not supporting the rights of civilians to own grenade launchers doesn't put that in danger IMHO. Others may differ.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Here's a quote from an anti gunner named Carl Rowan. This is the same man who used a handgun, in Washington, D.C. to chase a kid out of his pool. I don't recall if he actually shot the kid or not, but handguns are illegal to have in Washington, D.C. and old Carl was breaking the laws. I've included his statement after the event, which proves what a hypocrite he was. He has passed on the after life, IIRC.

"We must reverse this psychology (of needing guns for home defense). WE can do it by passing a law that says anyone found in possession a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail-period!"
-- Carl Rowan, Washington DC Syndicated Columnist, 1981 article


" ... as long as authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my family."
-- Carl Rowan, 1988 article titled "At Least They're Not Writing My Obituary"


This is why the word "need" or "needs" is repulsive to many gun rights supporters.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Now, some other laws perhaps, but not that one and I think that full autos being restricted for over 70 years without significant gun banning following is a evidence of that. Actually, I think in many cases our rights have grown. I couldn't carry a concealed weapon in TN when I turned 21 and now I can! Now, that's something I would fight for

The NFA existed for 52 years before a ban was enacted. That ban was part of the 1986 ban which said no more select firearms for law abiding citizens. We are now banning all ownership of any select fire firearms imported or manufactured after 1986. So you can own a 1985 M16, but not a 1987 M16. That makes a lot of sense. NOT! Was there a crime wave in the early 80's where criminals were using "legal" full autos during the commission of those crimes? I have heard that there has only been one murder committed with a registered full auto, and that was committed by a law enforcement agent. So why all of a sudden the need to put a ban in place in 1986? Please give me your reasoning for why that was "reasonable", TG.

Our rights have grown, but not because liberals watered and fertilized them. CCW has been a hard fought battle in every state where it is now allowed. Each and everytime the pro CCW forces had to go to battle to get those laws enacted, or to get bans against CCW removed by law, they had anti CCW forces saying, "No one 'NEEDS' to carry a handgun in public. That's what we have the police for".

 

[USAFNoDak]

I do want to say that you continued references to slavery, women voting, etc relating to unrestricted military weapons ownership is a poor analogy IMHO. I'm sorry but I don't think the unrestricted access to all military wespons cause is that particularly noble and I don't buy the slippery slope issue regarding NFA.

It's a great and perfect analogy IMHO. I agree that slavery was a much more severe restriction on civil rights than the NFA34 is, but since we don't have an issue with freedom being infringed to the degree that slavery was, we can now turn our focus to some of the other pressing issues.

No one was trying to equate slavery with full auto ownership. What I and several other posters were countering was you and Yukon claiming, "Well, the NFA and the 1986 ban are the law. Forget it and just learn to live with it".

The counter was, that at one point, slavery was the law. At one point, women not being allowed to vote or own property was the law. We stole the native americans' land through the law. I guess they should all have just learned to forget about it and live with it the way it is. That's not how a free society works, gentlemen. We have a right to contest the goverment and ask for a redress of our grievances, so long as we do it within the law. I haven't heard anyone here arguing that we operate outside of the law to get our way.

What I hear you and Yukon arguing is that we don't really have any grievance against the government because we don't have any "need" for full auto firearms. I disagree strongly with that take. Not necessarily that I have a "need" for a full auto firearm, but free men should not have to prove a need to exercise their freedom, unless that exercise puts society at large in danger. Me owning an M16 in addition to my AR15, does no such thing. Thus, I should be able to own an M16, made after 1986, if I can pay for it. I can own an M16 built in 1985 if I can find one for sale and pay for it. Did they signficantly change the design from 85 to 87, making the 87 version much more inherently dangerous?

The antis will come and tell us, (they already have), that we have no need for AR15's or other semiautomatic weapons which look military in their cosmetic designs.

Do you believe in a law that says we can only have ammo magazines that hold 10 rounds or less? Who needs more than 10 rounds when target shooting or hunting?

 

[mvpel]

Do you believe in a law that says we can only have ammo magazines that hold 10 rounds or less? Who needs more than 10 rounds when target shooting or hunting?

Heck, who needs more than three rounds when hunting? Or more than one? Why would anyone need more than a bolt-action rifle when hunting?
:barf:

 

[USAFNoDak]

Heck, who needs more than three rounds when hunting? Or more than one? Why would anyone need more than a bolt-action rifle when hunting?

Just to be clear, I don't believe in a law that bans magazines with more than 10 rounds of capacity. It's a stupid law. I was posing that question to TG and Yukon to see where they stand.

Be careful, however. Bolt action rifles were first designed for military use.
This means they were designed to kill people. The fact that they also make great hunting guns is irrelevent. It's only the design that counts, according to the anti gun folks. What ever else one might use a firearm for is totally beside the point. (sarcasm off).

 

[CGSteve8718]

Sorry to see you go Yukon. I see that as a cop out really, since you didn't address any of my points.

I did not call you an "anti" outright, I merely asked that you listen to yourself. You made a comment that went something like "pretending to be Rambo when going to check mail". Does that sound like something a "reasonable" person would say?

Of your 24 firearms, do you own any semi auto "assault weapons"? Ask yourself the same question you pose to us, what is your need to own those weapons?

For the record, I don't see myself as an extremist, and honestly I don't even really want to own a select fire weapon. I was in the military, and got to play with them a little bit, so the thrill isn't that special to me as it would be for people who have not.

The points myself and others keep addressing, you keep refusing to address. For me, it is not about me personally owning a select fire arm.

If myself and others are implying you may be an anti, you are implying that I am not a law abiding gun owner.

Judging from your farewell post, you are the one who isn't listening to reason, and you also didn't seem to read everyone's responses.

 

[Danzig]

I am most definitely an extremest. I am a pro freedom, pro rights extremest. I believe that the only restriction on rights is that one person's rights necessarily cannot infringe upon another's. My rights therefore end at your body, your family, your home, your business. There may be a couple others but that's the gist. If you own an M2 Browning .50 Caliber Machine gun then you are not in any way infringing upon my rights (because I do not have the right to keep you from owning said machine gun) unless you were to fire that weapon in a way that would harm me, my family, or my property. And my mere possession and lawful use of an MP5 submachine gun in no way treads upon your rights.

The same goes for every other aspect of life. If I am not infringing upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, or any of your other rights as listed in the Bill of Rights or retained in some other way, then you simply need to leave me be to pursue my pleasures and I will leave you free to pursue yours.

 

[Yellowfin]

It is sad, disgusting, and ironic how easily and willingly that people in the firearms owning community do the antis work for them by validating their incrementalism. For those wondering what the end result of those thinking it's OK to be against select fire and modern (non-bolt action) rifles, look at CA, NJ, and the UK.

I understand the sporting arms only dedicated people. I used to be one of them. I still do love my sporting arms and hunt and shoot clays enthusiastically. But hear me when I say this, people who are wood and blued only, 4 legged or feathered targets only folks: stand up for the black rifles and other stuff or you won't get to enjoy your stuff either. Stop selling out your brethren. Pinch your nose if you must but stop feeding the opposition. I know where you're coming from, but you need to get past it. Get out of denial, stop thinking you'll just hold out and it'll hold off in your lifetime. Stop being part of the "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you"--it's killing us in Cali, it's ruining the next generation, and it's letting other stuff get through that hurts you even if you're in a good enough position to ignore it.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I figured I'd never get YukonKid or Tennessee Gentleman to agree with me. I don't agree with their positions, but I respect their right to have them. I don't walk away from the debate, as YukonKid did, just because I can't convince other posters to take my side of the issue.

If your passion is thus that you feel so strongly about your position, keep hammering at it. Who knows when you will make a point that others might agree with? If you take your ball and go home, the game continues without you. Winners never quit and quitters never win.

You didn't see anyone else here walk away because they couldn't change your mind. Come on back and re engage. It's only an internet forum. It's not like you'll suffer a black eye or brain damage by staying in the ring and duking it out. And remember, like two wrestlers, we could go have a beer after we are done in the ring, because we probably have more in common than we differ as it relates to gun rights and the 2nd A.

 

[Jermtheory]

It is sad, disgusting, and ironic how easily and willingly that people in the firearms owning community do the antis work for them by validating their incrementalism. For those wondering what the end result of those thinking it's OK to be against select fire and modern (non-bolt action) rifles, look at CA, NJ, and the UK.

I understand the sporting arms only dedicated people. I used to be one of them. I still do love my sporting arms and hunt and shoot clays enthusiastically. But hear me when I say this, people who are wood and blued only, 4 legged or feathered targets only folks: stand up for the black rifles and other stuff or you won't get to enjoy your stuff either. Stop selling out your brethren. Pinch your nose if you must but stop feeding the opposition. I know where you're coming from, but you need to get past it. Get out of denial, stop thinking you'll just hold out and it'll hold off in your lifetime. Stop being part of the "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you"--it's killing us in Cali, it's ruining the next generation, and it's letting other stuff get through that hurts you even if you're in a good enough position to ignore it.

well said.

 

[mvpel]

I am most definitely an extremest. I am a pro freedom, pro rights extremest.

Of course, this brings a famous quote to mind:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Why the beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.

 

[USAFNoDak]

What an anarchist that old Barry Goldwater must have been.

 

[RedneckFur]

I cant seem to wrap my mind around the idea that a responsible gun owner with a few pump shotguns and bolt action rifles will suddenly turn into a clumsy ogre bent on destruction the moment he gets a full auto rifle or s short barrled shotgun.

But I guess thats what the goverment is for. To make these sorts of decisions and protect us from ourselves :barf:

 

[USAFNoDak]

And the government would have a hard time preventing people from getting short barreled shotguns without banning hacksaws and regular shotguns. A hacksaw and a half hours work and you can make a sawed off shotgun out of any "legal" scatter gun. Why do you think the British also banned shotguns unless you belong to a club and keep the thing there? They knew that criminals could get access to hacksaws if there were still shotguns around.

But, low and behold, all of their efforts to keep criminals from getting "illegal" weapons has not been all that effective. As a matter of fact, violent crime in the UK has been steadily on the rise since they banned guns for John Q. Public.

Canada's registration system has also not resulted in the dropping of violent crimes. Toronto's mayor is calling for a nationwide ban on handguns now. Seems the criminals in Toronto are not registering their handguns or any guns, like the law tells them they should. Gee, I guess that's why we call them criminals.

And let's not go down the path were people say, "just because having laws doesn't stop all crimes, do you think we shouldn't have any laws?" No way do I think that. What I think is that the law should define what we think is criminal behavior when that behavior violates the rights of others or breaks the social contract. The laws should define the punishment associated with that behavior, should you be tried and convicted by a jury of your peers for conducting such behavior.

I don't see how the possession of a gun falls under a criminal act, unless you have already committed a criminal act and have been convicted for it. Society can and should restrict some of your rights when you do such things. But for us folks who have played it straight, and will continue to do so, society has not benefit to disarming us, even from owning full auto or select auto firearms. That is not criminal. Now, if I were to take a full auto, or any gun for that matter, and try to rob the local convenience store, then I should have the book thrown at me and I should be subject to some very severe punishment. If I hurt someone, that punishment should be more severe. If I kill someone, I should probably lose my life or at least spend the rest of it at hard labor. Law abiding citizens purchasing and possessing guns, including full auto, doesn't seem to me to present any danger to society at large. Thus, it should not be a criminal offense.

 

[Jermtheory]

But, low and behold, all of their efforts to keep criminals from getting "illegal" weapons has not been all that effective. As a matter of fact, violent crime in the UK has been steadily on the rise since they banned guns for John Q. Public.

obviously thats because in their haste they forgot about those evil kitchens knives...an oversight which they're now trying to rectify.

im guessing that rocks,2x4's,and scrap metal are next?

yet so many of those in the US dismiss the "slippery slope" and cant imagine their guns being next on the list?

 

[Webleymkv]

I'm just now catching up on the discussion as I've been out of town (and away from a computer) for about a week.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

the reference equating slavery with full auto regulation is far out and almost offensive

Originally posted by Yukon Kid

TG, I to found the equation between slavery and full auto ownership appalling.

What's appaling or offensive about it? I did not make derogatory comments about anyone's race (or religion or gender for that matter). I was simply using the issue of slavery to illustrate that even unpopular causes are worth fighting for, that's it. I think the two of you may have been reading a bit too far into it.

I am not an anti in any form. I love shooting and hunting and would not give up my firearms without a fight, but the law is the law. I just do not NEED firearms in my life. My world does not revolve around ammo prices and when the next issue of American Handgunner comes out. I am shooter and hunter, but not an extremist who thinks I should have the right to buy whatever I want, I am quite happy with the selection on the table now.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't seem to recall anyone calling you anti-gun. Some of your arguments are the same as those used by anti-gunners and that's been pointed out, but I've yet to see anyone call you an anti. As far as your comments about extremists, well that's simply your opinion as most of us here don't seem to think that the same restrictions placed on one type of firearm should apply to another is at all extreme. Besides, being an extremist isn't a bad thing if your cause is a just one.

As to buying AK-47's in third world countries for so little money, why don't you go there and have all the AK's you want. Your life will be complete and you can sit in your dwelling stocked full of AK-47's and giggle all day because you are beating the $200 tax in the US. You will be living in a third world country and will most likely die of disease or starvation but you will have your full autos at last.

The point is that due to unnecessary and unreasonable restriction, the government has artificially inflated the price of something to the point that an illegal one is cheaper than a legal one.

Do not worry TG, I am not an anti, I love my weapons and I love to shoot. I just do not feel that civilians have any need for fully automatic weapons and all this complaining over money is silly. They are still buyable, it is complicated and expensive, but it is doable, so go do it if you want to.

Yet again we come to the word "need". Why does the government need to restrict them further than other firearms? Doesn't a background check (which applies to other firearms and I take no issue with) serve to keep them out of the hands of criminals? If a person isn't fit to own a fully automatic weapon, then are they fit to own a gun at all? As I've said numerous times, I don't support completely unregulated full-auto, I just think that the regulation that applies to other guns is more than sufficient for full auto as well.

I follow the laws, they are there for a reason, speed limits are designed to keep people safe, gun laws are the same. I am not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of people who don't even own full autos and cannot give me an reasons why they should have them or need them. There is nothing stopping you this minute from buying one other than your own finances, so take out a second mortgage on your house or trailer or whatever and go out and buy one (be sure to complain extra loud about the $200 tax, thats not even 2 full tanks of gas)

Speed limits are in place because in most places it isn't possible to safely operate a car at the maximum speed it is capable of. Driving a car at exessive speeds not only poses a danger to the operator of the car, but also the other drivers on the road and other people's property. A speed limit is more analagous to ordinances prohibiting shooting in certain places. The NFA is more analagous to extra regulation (as in above and beyond those applying to others) on cars over a certain horsepower because afterall, what law abiding citizen really needs 400 horsepower? Since we've brough up traffic laws, I take issue with some of them for the same reason that I take issue with the NFA. For example, I strongly disagree with current seatbelt laws because my wearing or not wearing one has no effect on other motorists nor anyone else's property, it's the same principle.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I'm sorry but I don't think the unrestricted access to all military wespons cause is that particularly noble and I don't buy the slippery slope issue regarding NFA.

Now, some other laws perhaps, but not that one and I think that full autos being restricted for over 70 years without significant gun banning following is a evidence of that. Actually, I think in many cases our rights have grown. I couldn't carry a concealed weapon in TN when I turned 21 and now I can! Now, that's something I would fight for

Actually, our rights have never grown, some of them have just been restored to some degree. When Tennessee (and most of the states) became a state, it was perfectly legal to carry a handgun concealed or otherwise and no permit was required. That right was taken away and has now been partially restored. As far as no significant gun banning in the last 70 years, that's simply incorrect. A myriad of small handguns (like the Walther PPK) were banned from importation due to the GCA of '68, machineguns made after a certain date were banned by the '86 law, a myriad of guns were banned from importation and subject to silly and confusing parts counts in '89, and a myriad of guns and magazines were banned by the '94 AWB (this one has thankfully expired if only temporarily). These are just the Federal laws, the lists of guns banned in states like California, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts is quite long.

Originally posted by USAFNoDak

I figured I'd never get YukonKid or Tennessee Gentleman to agree with me.

I really didn't expect to change their minds either. What I was really looking for was an open discussion where sentiments such as these have to be explained and defended and maybe at least make those who hold such sentiment think a little bit about why. Unfortunately, there were several points that myself and others brought up which Tennessee Gentleman and Yukon Kid refused to address.

 

[publius42]

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

Yep, I'd like to make that objection!

A ban on happy switches is unconstitutional.