Springfield XD40 wrote:
Man Guess I really opened a can of worms here. However, you guy's make some very valid points, after reading them, you're right, the logic is flawed. Just for the record, I'll soon be a CCW permit holder, I'm not an "anti-gunner", I'm just stating a feeling, you guy's did an excellent job of raising very valid points. Once again, I just learned a lot, that I hadn't previously thought of.
--------------
I guess that you did.
Having said that, you inquired as to the "need" for ownership of automatic weapons by civilians. Personally, I believe that is a very poorly put question, however you might consider the following, a question that another might put to you. Do you "need", however "Need" might be spelled, to carry a handgun concealed on or about your person?
Personally speaking, if you characterized that as another "poorly put question", I would NOT argue the point, however someone might still ask it. What would be your answer, other than the obvious, which someone who was desirous of owning a machinegun, could have applied to your question.
By the way, respecting a much used old saw, The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy, consider the following. Prior to 1934, at least according to federal law, given the purchase price of whatever type of machinegun you desired, you counted out the cash, or wrote a check, and took your machinegun home. The 1934 Act created that $200 Transfer Tax, not to mention the requirement for all manner of paper work, sometimes described as Welfare For Treasury Agents.
Anyhow, getting on with it, question has been raised as to the basis of the 1934 Act itself, for The Constitution nowhere gave The Congress the power to in any way at all, regulate or control guns, ergo the Revenue Raising Basis for the 1934 Act. The Congress had been given the power to levy and collect taxes. At this point, we come back to The Power to Tax and The Power to Destroy. While $200 might not be all that much today, in 1934, with the country economically speaking, falling on it's face, remember The Great Depression, $200 was a hell of a lot of money.
Was the intent of this law, and the level of taxation included therein a legitimate attempt to "raise revenue" or was the intent behind this level of taxation, the destruction of part of the right of Americans to Keep and Bear Arms? Answer that qoestion for yourself. By the way, from what I've here and there read,m the 1934 Act never raised all that much "revenue", and some have speculated that a more reasonable level of taxation, say $5.00collected on a drive thru basis, could really have been a money maker for government.
Alas, the thing was not so set up, and then we have seen, in the years since, all manner of legislative garbage foisted off on law abiding Americans, the 1986 legislation being just one example thereof. I rest my case.