None. We all the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as you don't do anything to infringe on my rights, I won't do anything to infringe on your rights. I guess only dangerous weapons could infringe on my rights. You can vote, practice you religion, have freedom of press and not infringe on any of my rights. In the wrong hands a bullet coming my way infringes on my right to live. And you do have to be registered to vote, do you have to be a minister or pastor to start a church? I don't know. You have to be registered as a business to run a newspaper or radio station. Your rights are already regulated if you look at it that way. So I'm not really suggesting anything out of the ordinary, it is already in place for most of your other rights.
Do you think machine guns should be legal?
- Thread starter MarkoPo
- Start date
If anyone considers the following to be "legal advice", that is up to them. In any case, it is worth what you are paying for it, perhaps a little more.
Automatic weapons (machineguns) are not illegal, in the sense that federal law says that it's illegal for the private citizen to own them. They are, of course heavily regulated and the transfer of machineguns is taxed. Ownership/acquisition by private citizens is limited to machineguns that existed prior to 1986, via a piece of legislative garbage that did nothing other than act to increase prices.
The original regulation of machineguns in federal law came to pass with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was really a piece of legislative garbage, in that it accomplished via slight of hand, what the constitution confered no authority on the congress to do, legislate regarding firearms. Seems that The Commerce Clause, at that time, hadn't been twisted around as it has come to be in more recent times, so the regulation of firearms was enacted under the guise of raising revenue, that is the enactment of taxes, which the congress was authorized by the constitution to do.
Iit appears that the following situation(s) exist.
1. The ownership/acquisition by private citizens, in-so-far as federal law is concerned, of PRE 1986 machineguns is legal, so long as all manner of hoops are jumped trough, and the federal transfer tax $200) is paid. Check with your state of residence re whatever they might have to say in this matter.
2. In my view, the original legislation regarding machine guns, other items were effected too, is constitutionally questionable, given the "fast and loose" manner in which it was accomplished, the phoney revenue raising status of this legislation. Possibly, respecting whatever ruling the USSC comes up with re Heller v. D.C., the existing situation might be clarified or improved, however that is purely speculation on my part, possibly wishfull thinking too.
That's about all for now, take a copuple of aspirins and call me in the morning.
Automatic weapons (machineguns) are not illegal, in the sense that federal law says that it's illegal for the private citizen to own them. They are, of course heavily regulated and the transfer of machineguns is taxed. Ownership/acquisition by private citizens is limited to machineguns that existed prior to 1986, via a piece of legislative garbage that did nothing other than act to increase prices.
The original regulation of machineguns in federal law came to pass with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was really a piece of legislative garbage, in that it accomplished via slight of hand, what the constitution confered no authority on the congress to do, legislate regarding firearms. Seems that The Commerce Clause, at that time, hadn't been twisted around as it has come to be in more recent times, so the regulation of firearms was enacted under the guise of raising revenue, that is the enactment of taxes, which the congress was authorized by the constitution to do.
Iit appears that the following situation(s) exist.
1. The ownership/acquisition by private citizens, in-so-far as federal law is concerned, of PRE 1986 machineguns is legal, so long as all manner of hoops are jumped trough, and the federal transfer tax $200) is paid. Check with your state of residence re whatever they might have to say in this matter.
2. In my view, the original legislation regarding machine guns, other items were effected too, is constitutionally questionable, given the "fast and loose" manner in which it was accomplished, the phoney revenue raising status of this legislation. Possibly, respecting whatever ruling the USSC comes up with re Heller v. D.C., the existing situation might be clarified or improved, however that is purely speculation on my part, possibly wishfull thinking too.
That's about all for now, take a copuple of aspirins and call me in the morning.
copenhagen
New member
Marko, seriously buddy, is this the right forum for you? I mean I don't find myself on Gay Rights websites doing gay bashing. And not to say you are gay, just saying maybe you stumbled and got the wrong forum...
Because I am advocating for safely knowing how to handle a firearm, I do not belong on this site? I think I have a right to my opinion. Isn't that the first amendment? I think I have alot more in common with most of you that you realize. I am a pro-gun voter I own a SKS and a Ruger 10/22 and just today I purchased a Springfield XD sub compact .40. I am taking a CCW class next month. Oh I am a NRA member also. Believe me when I say I don't want to take the rights away from legitimate gun owners. I just think there needs to be safety standards when it comes to owning weapons. Look at the poll numbers Legalizing machine guns is winning at 113 to 15. That's the beauty of our society usually the majority wins.
So then guns and knives should be banned completely because people use them to "infringe" upon others rights every day right?
And this is already illegal. As I said above, if this is your argument then logically you can only support banning all guns.
This isn't a restriction. For obvious reasons we need know who has cast a vote and who hasnt.
Not really. I can start the church of STAGE 2 tomorrow if I like. If I want certian tax exempt status then I do, but then again that isn't really relevant.
Sure you are. We already have reasonable regulations on firearms. You haven't given me any reason why automatic weapons should be illegal or should require any more qualification than semi auto weapons.
If anything, crime statistics show that there shouldn't be ANY restrictions on automatic weapons since 99% of crime doesn't involve them.
CGSteve8718
New member
Marko, the problem with your argument that people are trying to point out to you is that your argument is almost a mirror image of the arguments from the anti gun crowd.
Except they take it one step farther and say the same thing for 99% of firearms. They also don't see the need, use, or a reasonableness to own semi auto handguns, or semi auto rifles and shotguns that simply look like weapons used by the militaries of the world. I know that we are talking about the fearsome, dreaded, FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon here, but in reality, if we can have semi auto ARs, AKs, Uzis, Tec 9's, etc. etc., the increase in danger, if there is any, is minimal.
And like I alluded to earlier, the violence that will be caused by gangs, and criminals is more the effect of legislation that has nothing to do with firearms. Namely, the war on drugs.
I don't propose to have a solution, but I can say that we are handling it wrong by attacking the supply side of the drug issue. If we go about this drug issue a different way, I firmly believe that a dramatic decrease in street crime will follow, and subsequently so will seemingly unrelated crimes such as burglaries and muggings.
And again, as it was in the 20s, the violence will be primarily between those in the criminal elements. It was this way in the 80s crack boom and it will remain the same even with freely obtainable select fire weapons.
If criminals are so inclined to make bold and daring moves, they are perfectly well armed enough with the semi automatic versions of military arms available right now. They can already outgun and take by surprise any police on patrol with a semi auto AR, AK and a full combat load of magazines. But as the "statistics" show, crimes committed using "assault style" weapons is at insignificant levels.
And your true top tier, highly organized criminal elements can already freely obtain select fire weapons at their leisure, but they aren't the ones who would do something rash like a North Hollywood shootout.
Lastly, we are supposed to have select fire weapons to be on par with the military. You, like most Americans may see this as an antiquated viewpoint, but that is the true point behind the 2A.
Except they take it one step farther and say the same thing for 99% of firearms. They also don't see the need, use, or a reasonableness to own semi auto handguns, or semi auto rifles and shotguns that simply look like weapons used by the militaries of the world. I know that we are talking about the fearsome, dreaded, FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon here, but in reality, if we can have semi auto ARs, AKs, Uzis, Tec 9's, etc. etc., the increase in danger, if there is any, is minimal.
And like I alluded to earlier, the violence that will be caused by gangs, and criminals is more the effect of legislation that has nothing to do with firearms. Namely, the war on drugs.
I don't propose to have a solution, but I can say that we are handling it wrong by attacking the supply side of the drug issue. If we go about this drug issue a different way, I firmly believe that a dramatic decrease in street crime will follow, and subsequently so will seemingly unrelated crimes such as burglaries and muggings.
And again, as it was in the 20s, the violence will be primarily between those in the criminal elements. It was this way in the 80s crack boom and it will remain the same even with freely obtainable select fire weapons.
If criminals are so inclined to make bold and daring moves, they are perfectly well armed enough with the semi automatic versions of military arms available right now. They can already outgun and take by surprise any police on patrol with a semi auto AR, AK and a full combat load of magazines. But as the "statistics" show, crimes committed using "assault style" weapons is at insignificant levels.
And your true top tier, highly organized criminal elements can already freely obtain select fire weapons at their leisure, but they aren't the ones who would do something rash like a North Hollywood shootout.
Lastly, we are supposed to have select fire weapons to be on par with the military. You, like most Americans may see this as an antiquated viewpoint, but that is the true point behind the 2A.
It seems as if you are calling me obtuse. Are you reading my posts? I said all I am advocating for is proper training to own a machine gun. Not that this is relivant to my arguement, but were machine guns invented when the bill of rights were written? Do you think the right to bear arms includes everything under the sun including explosive devices, granades, rocket launchers, and how about military tanks? Are those considered arms? Believe me, it scares the hell out of me to think we could end up with Obama or Hiltery in the Whitehouse in 2009. Why is everyone so against training and safety to arm a machine gun? Isn't that what this forum is about safety and making the sport more appealing to others? I don't see how some of your arguements communicates that.
Why? Should I have to go for training to buy a pistol? How about a rifle? How about a semi auto AR?
All guns are dangerous. There isn't anything magical about an automatic weapon (with the exception of the smile they put on my face). So to single them out because they are "more dangerous" doesn't have any basis in logic or fact.
So the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet, radio or TV?
It doesn't matter whether the 2nd amendment includes them or not. Clearly hand held rifles are arms within the meaning of the 2nd. Since we know that the 2nd amendment was enacted as a basis for protection against a tyrannical government and not for hunting, recreation, or even personal self defense to an extent, the arguments that "you can't hunt with it" or "its not viable for self defense" aren't really viable.
Thus, since the 2nd amendment was meant for the people, in the form of militas, to fight off oppressive governmental forces it should be obvious that it protects "military style" weapons. As a result, its beyond argument that the 2nd protects a right to automatic weapons.
No one here is against safety. What we oppose is a violation of our rights in the form of mandated safety.
If something is a right, then there isn't anything one needs to do to earn the ability to assert it, no matter how "reasonable" or "prudent" it may seem. As a result, even though there are people that would abuse their rights, this is not a sufficient justification to deny the rights of people who assert them lawfully.
You are so against anything has violates your rights here, but yet in the thread about carrying at work you think it is ok for an employer to deny you to carry at work? Based on your own arguements how is that not violating your rights? I am beginning to think you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. I see you point here, you think because you have the right to bear arms, no one can tell you you need safety training to own any type of gun. I am quite done argueing over something that obviously will not be resolved here. I came here to learn and gain knowledge from those who were willing to offer it. This thread is going no where fast and this will be my last post in it.
Simple. My private property rights override anyone elses 2nd amendment rights.
I could say the same thing about you.
Thats pretty much it.
The problem clearly isnt with people offering it, its you being willing to accept it. I and others have pointed out the gaping holes in your logic, and yet you refuse to see them and move on to areas which are completely irrelevant.
I honestly cant see what you were expecting coming onto a gun board and advocation for restrictions on gun ownership. My advise to you is to read the constitution, and then hit up some philosophy regarding rights. Maybe then you'll understand.
armoredman
New member
Markpo. You advocate mandatory training to own a firearm. Disregard the type. Why? Because income tax started as only on the top 3% of the country, and now affects the entire coutry. Why is that relevant? ANY LIBERTY YOU ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO INFRINGE, THEY WILL INFRINGE TO THE LARGEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. You ask for, for the sake of argument, an 8 hour safety class, with a 10 question test at the end, 70% to pass, to own a select fire firearm. In 10-20 years, if the government is allowed to modify YOUR law, (and they will), it will be a $1000, 40 hour class, at your expense, held 400 miles from your home, 200 question test, 100% to pass, plus psych exam and DNA samples, and THAT'S to own a .22 bolt action rifle. Look at the European countries today, the ones that USED to have firearms freedom, what hoops they have to jump through to own a firearm.
You keep saying the slippery slope argument is fallacious. Since you use a global statement, I will answer with one - wrong, your argument is completely fallacious.
You keep saying the slippery slope argument is fallacious. Since you use a global statement, I will answer with one - wrong, your argument is completely fallacious.
copenhagen
New member
See Marko, I can own a car all day long and drive it all that I want so long as I am not on publicly owned roads. Don't really see how somebody could require a lisence for a firearm as long as someone is not shooting it at the public. I mean it just makes no sense. We may as well have lisences for steak knives. A mugger could cut you with one of those right? That'd be an infringement of your right to have an intact jugular. What about ice skates? Seems to me that a Florida hockey player just got his corotid severed by an ice skate. Almost died. Maybe his team mate did not have the proper safety training. Life is dangerous buddy, get over it already. If it's my time.. then it's my time.
Edward429451
Moderator
With 'you just pay' being the downside and the major infringment.
Where did we get on this 'vehicle' analogy, anyway? Driving a vehicle on public roads is a PRIVELEGE, defined as such.
The 2nd Amendment addresses an inalienable RIGHT. There is a huge difference.
Let's look at it this way, Mark. Why did the founders write the 2nd Amendment? What does it protect and why?
The 2nd Amendment addresses an inalienable RIGHT. There is a huge difference.
Let's look at it this way, Mark. Why did the founders write the 2nd Amendment? What does it protect and why?
metalheadlead
Inactive
guaranteed by 2nd Amendment
rights to own ANY firearm guaranteed by our founding fathers.no limits described in constition,believe me, just as they had the foresight to see the progression of country; they had the foresight to see the progression of technology relating to the firearm.
rights to own ANY firearm guaranteed by our founding fathers.no limits described in constition,believe me, just as they had the foresight to see the progression of country; they had the foresight to see the progression of technology relating to the firearm.