ATF just ruled your "tactical" shotgun illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pezo. I appreciate your opinion and mine is no better than yours, but I find it difficult to understand why anyone would need an M-60 machine gun for home defense and I don't want the guy across the street having one. That is not to say the right to possess an M-60, in my opinion, is not Constitutionally protected as part of the right to have a militia, but I think the two are quite different (militia and home defense). I know we won't agree but can agree to respectfully disagree.
 
Please re-title the thread as it is a complete falsification of the truth. They have banned nothing. This was just a study (one of many they do on a normal basis).
 
DonR101395;

You made a valid point; some want what is not needed and they claim they have a right to have it. Some others beleive that there is no such thing as ann absolute right, but if there are they are few, and one has to consider the rights of others. An example being freedom of speech, but one doesn't have a right to yell fire when ther is none in a crowded theatre and put others at risk of being trampled. I don't want my neighbor having an M-60 machine gun, because I don't think he needs one for home defense and I am not convinced he could use it without putting my family at risk. However, I think we have a collective right to utilize machine guns as part of a well regulated state militia.
 
You made a valid point; some want what is not needed and they claim they have a right to have it. Some others beleive that there is no such thing as ann absolute right, but if there are they are few, and one has to consider the rights of others. An example being freedom of speech, but one doesn't have a right to yell fire when ther is none in a crowded theatre and put others at risk of being trampled. I don't want my neighbor having an M-60 machine gun, because I don't think he needs one for home defense and I am not convinced he could use it without putting my family at risk. However, I think we have a collective right to utilize machine guns as part of a well regulated state militia.
Click to expand...


The big problem I see with your argument is that you don't have a right or the authority to decide what your neighbor needs.
On yelling fire; sure you have a right to yell it. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have freedom from consequences. If you yell fire you may have to face some consequences and if your neighbor shoots your house up he'll have consequences to face as well. In other words until he infringes upon you; you have no right to tell him how to exercise his freedom or rights.


ETA: You also may want to look at the Militia Act of 1903 and re-read the second amendment. One creates the "Unorganized Militia" and the other has nothing to do with a state militia.
 
Last edited:
DonR:

You are flat wrong if you don't think I have the right to decide what I think my neighbor need for home defense. Whether or not I can do anything about it is a different thing and that is done through the body politic.

You are flat wrong when you say that one has the right to yell fire, whenn there is none, and cause a panic that could lead to death. Should that happen, you could be charged with homicide. The law could also prevent you from yelling fire under such circumstances, the problem being that it will not act unless a risk of serious bodily injury is imminent.

If you feel that something creates an "unorganized militia" you are free to cite the document and where it says the same.
 
You are flat wrong if you don't think I have the right to decide what I think my neighbor need for home defense. Whether or not I can do anything about it is a different thing and that is done through the body politic.

If you can't enforce it i.e. do anything about it. You have no right to do it.


You are flat wrong when you say that one has the right to yell fire, whenn there is none, and cause a panic that could lead to death. Should that happen, you could be charged with homicide. The law could also prevent you from yelling fire under such circumstances, the problem being that it will not act unless a risk of serious bodily injury is imminent.

Sorry man, but you're wrong. You absolutely have the right to do it; the homicide charge that may follow is a consequence. Remember I said you weren't free from the consequences of your actions?

If you feel that something creates an "unorganized militia" you are free to cite the document and where it says the same.

It's in the 1903 Militia act I asked you to research. It states that every able bodied male between the age of 17 and 45 is a member of the Unorganized Militia. The state militia wasn't created until 1903; 112 years after the Second Amendment was added to the constitution. So your argument about state militia obviously couldn't have been in the minds of those who drafted the amendment.
Click to expand...

Mine in bold.

If you're going to argue something at least be educated about what you're arguing and don't just go on feeling and emotion.
 
This is the last word I have to say on this, Don. You think that a person has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire; you thing a person has right to have a machine gun for home defense, and you think the right to bear arms doesn't refer to the collective right of the people, but to each individual. You completely overlook that the right is ancillary to a free State's need for a well regulated militia.
 
The Second Amendment is there to ensure we,the people, can resist aggression from without the country and tyranny from within.

"Sporting Purposes" has nothing to do with it. The Second is there so when the next Hitler tries to send anyone to the death camps, WE have the means of ensuring that does not happen.

Not the Government.

Us.

I do not see much good coming from leaving this open, so it's closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top