Full Auto Should Be Legal...?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand both of your points. I wasn't really trying to argue that the second amendment should not apply to all guns, though it never specifies what type of arms they are talking about (swords, knives, ninja stars?). The wording of the second amendment goes like this:

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While proponents of FA weapons look to the phrase "shall not be infringed", those who wish to see them excluded from the 2nd amendment can use the phase "well regulated" to just as easily demonstrate their point that not all guns need to be prevalent in civilian affairs.

A literal translation of this would obviously be impractical. I think many of us would agree that there are some "arms" that might not be suitable to civilians. Certain rocket/grenade launchers and things like flame throwers come to mind, mostly things that require special training to operate safely.

My original point was not that the second amendment is wrong or out of date or anything like that. I just think that it is best to use arguments that don't rely on intentionally vague guidelines written over 200 years ago. The threat of government tyranny is an outstanding case for why FAs should be available. Collateral damage is also a good case against it. Whatever stance anybody takes is fine. I just get sick of hearing people paraphrase the bill or rights when there is better evidence to use. I would love to see more people use real concrete data and statistics to make the case relevant to today. Cases presented in this way give more legitimacy to gun owners' rights and are a heck of a lot more convincing than "shall not be infringed"



Swamp Yankee: That is unfortunate. Try moving to the south, it's still america down here
 
Last edited:
Well, our erudite friends who support the NFA certainly do put forth a logical and well reasoned debate, at least on the surface. My contention however, is that underneath their impassioned pleas for sanity and calls to consider public safety, is the same fear and distrust of law abiding citizens that drives the agenda of those who want to ban all firearms. The cries of they are 'too dangerous' and only the police and military should have them, are the exact same ones that the Brady Bunch use every day in reference to all firearms.

Now before anyone gets overly excited, or accuses me of calling them anti-gun, or somehow being like unto Brady supporters, I want you to know that is not at all the case. I sincerely believe that everyone who has so far posted in this thread supports the RKBA.

The only point I'm trying to make, is that your calls for support of the NFA, no matter how well intentioned are based on the same logic used by those who want no private ownership of firearms whatsoever. Remember that the antis also believe that their ideas will make society safer, by severely limiting personal weapons ownership.

Automatic rifles, pistols and submachine guns are personal weapons. It does not take a crew to run them and they are not WMDs. In the end, when all is said and done, the reasoning behind arguing against their private ownership sounds no different to me than the reasoning behind restricting and banning all other personal weapons.
 
The best way to combat a well reasoned and logical debate is with a more logical and well reasoned debate. The best way to show that these guns should be more legal is to show people how rare it is for a FA weapon to be used in criminal activity outside of hollywood. Not by quoting the bill of rights.
 
First off, thank you to all who have taken the time to leave calculated and well thought out responses.

I realize that posting this type of thread on a forum such as this is essentially preaching to the choir, but I was happy to see those who had opinions against more widespread FA ownership.

I say I was happy, not because I agree per se, but because my intent in writing this thread was to hash out the issues...on BOTH sides.

I see after two pages and a couple of PMs (Thank you by the way) that people have put much thought into their responses.

Here is why I brought this issue up;

I have been recently reviewing the various arguments made by ant-gun parties and what struck me most was the fact that I simply didn't have a single good reason why I "Need" a semi auto.

Sure, I could start talking about follow up shots in hunting and SD, or timed sport shooting events etc... but it occurred to me that all of those situations COULD be fulfilled by a bolt action/lever action/pump action or revolver.

In short, I don't NEED a semi auto, I WANT them.

Then, it occurred to me that if I don't "NEED" a semi- auto how come I am allowed to have one?

This got me thinking about the 2nd A. and its purpose. Certainly no one knows what the founding fathers were actually thinking. But I submit that we don't need to. Rather, we must remember that they were mere men (Though apparently endowed with an amazing amount of wisdom). These men were effectively traitors to their country of origin and they were doing their darnedest to prevent the injustice that they felt had oppressed them, from happening to their new country.

Among the many checks and balances (Laid in law) was this curious provision that guaranteed the citizen's rights to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers inserted this provision in a strangely vague manner. That is, within the sentence "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Being a law student, that is a student of the law and a man who has effectively committed himself to that law I have a difficult time bringing both the law and this seemingly self destructive provision into alignment.

Notwithstanding, I have dwelt on this matter long and hard and concluded that there are three (3) major reasons why the 2nd could have or was inserted into our Constitution.
1. The "Sporting" purpose for individual firearms ownership. I.e. for hunting and target shooting.

2. Self defense against non-governmental threats.

3. The most ominous is the implication of maintaining "security of a free state". In essence I take this language to be a physical, not merely legal, ultimate check.

Based on the context of the creation of this country, I conclude that this third basis for the 2nd A. has merit (as do the first two). However, it is a dangerous and conflicting merit. I.e. there is no law which tells the citizens (or states and citizens) when they may take up arms against the Fed. Govt.

If our own courts have taught us anything, it is that we are NOT to take matters into our own hands, but are to comply with the law (Unjust or not) and challenge it via accepted legal means. (See unauthorized civil rights marches in the 50s and 60s).

I for one have not discovered a way to reconcile these two competing perspectives.

Returning however, to the issue of why we "need" certain types of guns I look to the 3 reasons for private ownership.

1. Sporting purposes: For sport alone, it is difficult to state absolutely (emphasis added to the word absolutely) why the citizens need to be allowed to own semi autos. The majority of hunting rifles are bolt action with small magazines or clips. Target shooting does not require a high ROF and clay shooting can be easily enjoyed with pump actions.

2. Self Defense: The argument for need of semi auto increases in this category but not exponentially. Most would agree that one of the best forms of home defense firearms is a pump action 12guage. However, if someone doesn't have the shotgun, an argument could very easily be made for the need for follow up shots to a drugged up assailant who feels no pain. Throw in the virtual guarantee that the adrenaline charged and inexperienced armed citizen will barely be able to hit the broad side of a barn during the attack and a good case can be made for a semi auto. Still, anti gunners could state that such needs are met by revolvers. (For concealed carry etc...).

3. "...necessary to the security of a free state...": This is what has been labeled as the "insurrection theory". If this is in fact at least one of the reasons for the insertion of the 2nd A. then the "Need" for semi auto grows tremendously. If in fact the Founding Fathers believed that an armed populace would serve as a deterrent then the need for the civilian population to be allowed to bear semi autos becomes very strong.

It doesn't end there however, because if deterrance was one of the reasons for the insertion of the 2nd A. then why should the citizenry be limited to semi autos? In fact, full auto would be the logical stopping point as it is what the military uses and would therefore, theoretically, be using against its citizens.

I am but a humble law student and I realize that there are undoubtedly countless wiser minds out there who could find foils to my arguments.

I admit that my logic path could be used to justify ownership of far more dangerous devices such as explosives of all sizes. I will ponder that issue further.

However, my purpose here is not SO MUCH to make an argument, but more to bounce these ideas off the learned members who view this.

This all started for me when I saw a question that I heard posed by an anti gun woman to Wayne La' Pierre; "Why do you need semi autos...".

I realized at that moment, that, for all that I thought I knew about the law and this Country, I didn't have a rock solid answer.

I don't like the notion that "Insurrection" is the best justification for owning large capacity mags and semi autos.

I love my country and the law that is this nation's backbone. I concede that, as any product of human design, our system may not be perfect. However, I plan on remaining a United States citizen till I die and I will cherish the privileges and freedoms I am entitled to as a result.

Sincere Regards,

Konrad
 
Militia arms and hunting arms were much more similar to one another in 1789 (same exact gun I'd bet). Major distinctions between the two did not really come to be until the 20th century (about the time that the NFA rules came about). When the second amendment was written, the budget for the national army was very small. The success of national security rested on the civilian/soldier. As late as 1798 leaders such as Alexander Hamilton were still worried about the implications of having a permanent national army and barely voted to expand it to ten thousand troops. When the bill of rights was written there was almost no U.S. army for the citizens to fear. Britain was the main threat. Local militias were much more organized and important. They were necessary to protect us against hostile Natives and Outlaws. There were no helicopters to deploy the national guard to New Orleans or anything like that. Citizens were more directly responsible for their own safety. If something horrible happened in your neighborhood it could be days until the government even knew about it. Oh yeah, and there was no such thing as a police officer in 1789, The first modern police force was founded in 1829 in London. the best one could hope for was a sheriff and a group of volunteers, but isn't that just another way to say militia. I'm also pretty sure that black people were property, and women couldn't vote. The world was very different then. The founders were very wise, but they were sometimes wrong and they should not be quoted as if they were the voice of the almighty in heaven. The second amendment is a landmark idea, and honestly I feel lucky to be able to own any guns. I have many friends in other countries who are not as fortunate. People in this country have more gun rights than almost anyone and I feel lucky to be an American and so should most of you, The fact that even some of us can own machine guns is rare here in the first world; we should be thankful for what we have, not bitter for what we don't. I'm not really trying to say that protection from tyranny wasn't part of it, obviously it was, but it was not the only reason.

I think it is important for us to look beyond government tyranny in support for guns because it is pretty fatalist and honestly it freaks out liberals. As long as liberals think that the main reason why we want guns is to start revolutions then they will try their hardest to keep them away from us. The best way that I can think of to help the cause of gun supply is to provide cheap or even free classes (not mandatory) in firearms safety so that if people are going to have guns they will be more likely to be smart with it. This could help ease the nerves of the liberals some and get them to back off a little

Konrad: I really liked this thread. I totally support gun ownership, but this thread really made me think about what you had said, do I really need one, or just want one. I think that most experienced shooters can agree that one well placed single shot it the best way to take out a target. So then, why do we need them? Basically we don't. As you said we want them, and that's fine. The constitution allows us the pursuit of happiness, and if blasting off 30 rounds out of an AK-47 in a safe way makes you happy then heck yeah, go for it!!

The main thing that peaked my intrigue was your idea that this is not a need, it is a want (which is fine, this is america right?). But the interesting idea is that the founding fathers included this amendment with the explicit purpose of giving us the ability to do something that is about as illegal as it gets, starting a revolution. It's one of the only laws that is put in place so that other laws can be broken should the majority of us see fit. From a legal perspective it is unique in that regard.

I think I'm going to start a thread dealing with practical (legal) situations where a FA gun would really be a better choice. I think that it is important to illustrate their utility if we are ever to convince anybody to decrease the restrictions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, I got a reason for 'legal' full auto that meets the standards of the times

more full auto weapons means more people practicing with them and this means more ammo shot, which means more ammo bought and more spending and more jobs.. economic recovery!

Sorry, had to throw a joke in there.
 
I would comment that it is a mistake to necessarily think that conservatives support more lenient firearms ownership. It depends on your species of conservatives. The economic elitists are not ok with power residing in the hands of the common folk. Using the power of the state against workers is not unknown. Seizing property for the betterment of the rich and powerful is not unknown.

The denizens of the gated community, golden parachutes and bonuses might look awry at a citizenry who owns FA weapons and then watches a show about the French revolution on the History channel.

Off with their heads - easily might be applied to the next wave of Bank of Corrpution officers who get bonuses as they foreclose on you and your job disappears because CEO Lance MoneyBucks the III has sent your job to Mumbai.

Think deeply, Grasshopper. about insurrection before you glibly suggest who supports the ability of the common folk to resist government. It is probably not a resurgent social conservative movement (which would have little traction outside a slice of the South) which is feared by the power structure but a populist, anti the affluent establishment revolution that is feared. In fact, the social conservative issues can be seen as diversions from the real sources of power issues.
 
Konrad,

Thanks for bringing up this thread and I am very pleased with the tenor and tone the thread has produced.

Here are a couple of my thoughts.

First, I do not think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect us from a tyrannical internal government. Note the bolding, I think the purpose of the militia and the Second Amendment was to protect us from foreign governments really invaders like Great Britain (which happened in 1812!) there was your security of a free state, and for citizens to protect themselves from each other, indians, and other personal threats. The protection from tyranny is found in the genius of checks and balances between the three branches of government and further still by delegation of powers to the states with the BORs as the standard by which all regulation or restrictions of the people must be measured.

I look thru history and find that our democratic institutions backed by Federal power have made us freer with each passing decade. I see no instances (please don't bring up The Battle of Athens in TN) where simple armed citizens on their own defined or enhanced liberty or freedom in this country. I think the Founding Fathers feared a large standing Army but as Dr. J pointed out, the nature of warfare and the world changed and today we need one.

My bottomline, the 2A right of a citizen to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves personally from criminals, critters in the woods or personal threats and not from our government. The militia is no more and although some states have provisions for one, none exist in the same way they did in 1787. Today, we are protected in a macro sense by a standing army and professional police forces and personally by our own firearms. I believe that to be the state of gun rights today.

When gun owners talk about citizens owning guns to be used to overthrow the government by force, it scares a lot of people with good reason because it smacks of lawlessness. What the non-gun owning person hears is: "If the government does something I don't like and I don't have the votes to stop it I'll revolt!" Maybe not what you mean but that is how it is taken and that give we gun owners a bad name. I believe that is why the insurrection theory gets no traction in the public place of ideas or the courts.

One final thing about semi-autos and sporting uses. The AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot and I submit that today their may be more "shooters" than hunters and so I wouldn't limit sporting uses to just hunting deer or rabbits.
 
Off with their heads - easily might be applied to the next wave of Bank of Corrpution officers who get bonuses as they foreclose on you and your job disappears because CEO Lance MoneyBucks the III has sent your job to Mumbai.
Click to expand...

Reading the Daily Kos again Glenn?:D;)

WildineedaboardtoranteconomyonAlaska TM
 
I started and participated in a thread along the same train of thought as this one in the now defunct legal and political forum this past summer. Tennessee Gentleman and myself debated the issue at great length, and anyone who wishes to see it can do so very easily using the search function (it's quite an interesting read). Without getting into such a drawn out debate (it's already been hashed out in that other thread and I don't really feel like doing it all over again), I'll simply state my position and let that be the end of it. I do not believe that fully-automatic weapons should be regulated any more severely than any other type of firearm. If used responsibly, I've seen no evidence that they represent any greater threat to public safety than other firearms, and those who wish to use them irresponsibly or illegally can still obtain or fabricate them relatively easily. Because of this, I believe that the current restriction of fully-automatic weapons, for the most part, only effects responsible gun owners who are already law-abiding citizens.
 
nate45 said:
The only point I'm trying to make, is that your calls for support of the NFA, no matter how well intentioned are based on the same logic used by those who want no private ownership of firearms whatsoever. Remember that the antis also believe that their ideas will make society safer, by severely limiting personal weapons ownership.
Click to expand...

Nate, good points and this illuminates something I adhere to when reading posts on TFL or talking about guns rights to others.

I don't look at the Brady types in black and white focus. One thing I learned in school years ago is that political or military opponents tend to project mirror images of themselves on each other. The other side is always, stupid, corrupt and malevolent and if you don't agree then you are a traitor. Such mental orthodoxy seldom produces anything useful and just tends to polarize the debate.

I like to look at the ideas and judge and discuss them objectively rather than just saying "well that's a communist idea!". We have debate on this forum about things like background checks, private sales, and the NFA and I think considering all sides of those debates make us better informed.

Logic is not the sole province if any side and the Brady people have some logic IMO on some issues. This may make me sound like a sell-out but I am not. I do want to explore the reasoning and logic of all sides and by doing so it gives me a sanity check that I always need;)

PS I hope when you used the term erudite, you weren't talking about me. This would ruin my reputation:)
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
First, I do not think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect us from a tyrannical internal government. Note the bolding, I think the purpose of the militia and the Second Amendment was to protect us from foreign governments really invaders like Great Britain
Click to expand...

Thats what you think and thats fine, it is your right and prerogative to think what you will, but here is what I think.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, notice that comma Tenn? I believe that the founders recognized the very thing that you do, that a standing army was necessary to the security of a free state, to defend against those foreign enemies you speak of. At the time this was written though the founders had just finished fighting the large standing army that was there to protect them from foreign enemies, that army was fought by the citizen army of the colonies. They also recognized that their current large standing army, that was necessary to defend against foreign invaders, such as the War of 1812 you referenced, might some day have to be defended against again by private citizens, hence the second half of the sentence... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not the army, not the members of the militia, but every private citizen, the same private citizens that had just defeated the last standing army.

So my view of the 2nd is that the founders recognized that to defend the country they needed a military force, but they also recognized the potential for unscrupulous leaders to abuse the power of that military force. So to counter it they made sure that private citizens would retain the arms needed to oppose such a threat.
 
If used responsibly, I've seen no evidence that they represent any greater threat to public safety than other firearms, and those who wish to use them irresponsibly or illegally can still obtain or fabricate them relatively easily. Because of this, I believe that the current restriction of fully-automatic weapons, for the most part, only effects responsible gun owners who are already law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

It is the irresponsible use that is the decision point. To play Devil's advocate - is it really the case that the rampage shooter can easily make or obtain them? We have had a few dozen rampages without FA weapons. Would not Cho or the NIU shooter, for instance, who were fascinated by weapons and got them through normal and easy channels, not have bought fully auto guns if available with the same ease. You could just as easily argue that you don't seem them used but those to whom they would be attractive because of the restrictions.

That we don't see them used much in crime speaks to the difficulty of getting them by the irresponsible.

Sorry, to sound like a negative here - but if you want to make a case - you need to be able to deal with such propositions.

And to Ken - not reading the Daily Kos - watching my pension plan crash. As my grandmother said: "After the revolution, we will all eat strawberries!"

Nice old Russian lady - I have a jewelry box from her, covered with a piece of the Czar's carpet. Guess what happened to him.
 
nate45 said:
I believe that the founders recognized the very thing that you do, that a standing army was necessary to the security of a free state,
Click to expand...

Nate, actually I think the Founding Fathers feared a standing army and preferred the militia as a way of keeping military power decentralized from the feds. Also, a militia was much cheaper than a standing army which required tax dollars and beaurecracy to stay maintained. The standing army really did a lot of housekeeping things back then. In fact West Point was originally a place to train engineers to be used for territorial expansion. Since threats to the republic were slow to develop they reasoned that a militia could be raised, equipped and controlled by the government and then used to defend the country. Saying the militia would be used for overthrowing the government contradicts Article One Section Eight of the COTUS.

nate45 said:
hence the second half of the sentence... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... not the army, not the members of the militia, but every private citizen,
Click to expand...

I agree with this above but not this below:

nate45 said:
but they also recognized the potential for unscrupulous leaders to abuse the power of that military force. So to counter it they made sure that private citizens would retain the arms needed to oppose such a threat.
Click to expand...

I think the reason for allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms was for personal defense as Justice Kennedy questioned Mr. Dellinger in the Heller case just decided and to provide armed manpower to the militia to fight insurrections and foreign enemies.
 
Last edited:
Well, Tennessee Gentleman, you and I, will have to agree to disagree.:)

First I want to emphatically state that I do not at the present time feel that our government is a mortal enemy to freedom and our republican form of government. I do however believe it is now and has always been a potential enemy of freedom and our republican form of democracy. Or to be more specific the wealth and power of our government and the potential, however unlikely, for the abuse of that wealth and power.

I myself fully support constitutional solutions to all of our political and legal quandaries, I even support those solutions and court decisions that are not to my liking. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that a revolution will ever occur in this country, unless there were extraordinary circumstances, such as the wholesale abandonment of the COTUS in an attempt to institute some completely different, possibly authoritarian form of government. Then a revolution is not only possible, but in my view would be justified and necessary.

I understand the fear and reluctance to even contemplate armed revolution, I fear it myself, I don't want it. Nothing that has transpired politically in this country in my lifetime has ever made me think one was needed, or even need be contemplated. However to suggest, given the history of world governments, that it is beyond the realm of possibility is over optimistic and somewhat naive.

It is right and correct for sane men to loath and fear revolution, for instance only 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolt against the Crown. Extraordinary circumstances however require extraordinary measures.
 
Nate,

Actually we agree quite a bit. I actually support just about everything you said in your post #55.

As to a wholesale abandonment of the COTUS? It is not (nor is anything really) beyond the realm of possibility I concede. However, I look at that sort of thing like I look at the Russian saying about Nuclear War and the End of the World. The living will envy the dead. I will be long dead before a true authoritarian rule is in place so worrying about it is a waste of time for me.

I do worry a little about my home being invaded by a thug or being carjacked robbed and murdered and so arm myself accordingly. But the U.S. government going south on freedom and liberty? Naw.
 
To all who have posted:

Thank you!

At the risk of tooting our own horns, I cannot help but think that the conversations we have had and the positions we have taken are somewhat similar to those that occurred more than two hundred years ago.

For all our complaints and or grumbling about the system, it is a beautiful sight to see US citizens being allowed to discuss these matters in a sincere and learned manner.

This has got to be one of the best forum conversations that I have seen in a while.

To me, I see smart minds on both sides of this argument. It seems to me that as one member said so rightly "reasonable minds" can differ on this subject of full auto firearms ownership.

I support it.

Thanks to all of you who have put so much time and thought into this thread.

If any of you are in the Central Fla. area drop me a line if you could use some company at the range!

Regards,

Konrad
 
I would comment that it is a mistake to necessarily think that conservatives support more lenient firearms ownership. It depends on your species of conservatives. The economic elitists are not ok with power residing in the hands of the common folk. Using the power of the state against workers is not unknown. Seizing property for the betterment of the rich and powerful is not unknown.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. We are all different and special like snowflakes.

What I should have clarified is that I was using the distinctions liberal and conservative as it applied to ones belief on just this issue, gun rights (liberal-more regulation and conservative-less regulation). What I'm writing about has nothing to do with the economy so economic elitism really isn't a factor, but I do see what your saying, point taken. I have found that gun rights especially in my area of the country are much more universally respected. Most all of the democrats I know are also gun owners and take some issue with what their party often tries to do, but guns aren't the only political issue out there and their passions must lie elsewhere.
 
It is the irresponsible use that is the decision point. To play Devil's advocate - is it really the case that the rampage shooter can easily make or obtain them? We have had a few dozen rampages without FA weapons. Would not Cho or the NIU shooter, for instance, who were fascinated by weapons and got them through normal and easy channels, not have bought fully auto guns if available with the same ease. You could just as easily argue that you don't seem them used but those to whom they would be attractive because of the restrictions.
Click to expand...

Glenn, what you fail to take into account is that both shooter could have obtained arguably more effective weapons such as a semi-automatic AR-15 or Saiga 12 shotgun (both weapons are, to my knowledge, perfectly legal in Illinois and Virginia and subject to no further regulation than any other firearm) just as easily as the weapons that they chose (handguns and in the case of the NIU shooter a pump-action shotgun). Likewise it could be argued that had the victims of these shootings had access to fully-automatic weapons (or any weapons at all for that matter) the results may have been much different. My point is that hypothetical situations, while often interesting, don't really prove or disprove a point. I do, however, think that it's safe to say that these two individuals did not choose their weapons on the basis of "it's the best they could get" as that was clearly not the case. Finally, I think that we start down a slippery slope when we discuss firearms restriction based on hypothetical situations as one can justify almost any restriction based on "what ifs." As I said before, I debated many of these concerns with Tennessee Gentleman at great length in another thread not too long ago, and it was closed by Antipitas because it wound up going nowhere. Rather than go into another 15-page debate, I'll simply post the link to that thread and let that be the end of it.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299021
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top