Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.

TN Gent,

I'm sure someone has already brought this up before, but how can you seriously not subscribe to the "give an inch, they'll take a mile" view? There are localities, and states that do just that right now.

I have had some military experience as well, and I can see how select fire weapons would not be "practical" for self defense, but DonR and others have already addressed how I feel about that issue, I agree with them.

However, since you don't seem to support them being protected under the 2A for public safety concerns is where it becomes dangerous. Nearly all gun control laws are born out of ignorance from the media, the anti gun crowd, and our elected officials. If you take your stance just one inch further, it would then be good enough to ban and prohibit semi auto firearms that merely have the appearance of their select fire military counterparts. CA is one such place that already does this (among others).

So at first glance, it would also seem that you do not support or would be OK with not supporting the ownership of firearms such as the AR 15's, the entire semi auto AK/AKM platform, semi auto Uzis, etc. either? These semi auto cousins of their military counterparts are no less dangerous because they are semi auto, and if they are barred from ownership from your vaunted public safety concerns, well then, that is taking a mile. And believe me, if that is a "reasonable restriction", then they will eventually be able to "reasonably restrict" any firearms they so choose.
 
I believe that line is "weapons in common use by civilians". Others think it should be whatever the US Army Infantry is using at the present.
Click to expand...

If you paid attention to the oral arguments in the Heller case, you would see that the point was made there that you cannot ignore the prefatory clause of the 2A. The fact that it begins "A well regulated Militia," says that the Militia is WHY "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people should have the right to have the same arms that the standing Army has, so as to ensure that the Federal government would not disarm the state militia.

The fact that machine guns are not in common use by civilians is because they are illegal (since 1986), and the $200 tax in 1939 was the equivalent of $5,000 in 2005 (this would have made the tax unaffordable for nearly all Americans- who had a month's pay to squander on a machine gun tax?). If not for the transfer tax, and the illegality they would be far more common than they are.

Why should owning a machine gun be illegal? Is it impractical? Sure, but so is buying a Shelby Mustang. As long as I don't break the law with either one, then what do you care? It all boils down to one thing: Gun control, like all other laws, only affects the law abiding.
 
Somebody tell me again how a fully-automatic weapon isn't suitable for self-defense/home defense, and furthermore... why?

I know of a few people that keep a semi-auto version of an M4 for just that purpose. And I doubt very seriously that if it comes to having to use it, they'll fire only one round.

Now let's say it takes them 3 rounds to stop the threat. Those three rounds will take, what, about a second? Maybe less?

What's the difference between 3 manually fired rounds, and 3 automatically fired rounds, other than a very brief span of time?

How about a 12 ga. shotgun, that has the ability to fire anywhere from 9 to 18 .30 caliber projectiles all at once?

Sorry, but has someone who has been both a soldier AND a L.E.O., I just don't see the argument against fully-automatic weapons holding much water. Normal safe gun handling skills will keep them just as safe as any other firearm. Poor gun handling skills make even a BB gun dangerous. And as for the skills it takes to get the most out of them... well, they can be learned. And they can be learned without necessarily being taught. After all, if you spend enough time with any piece of equipment, you'll eventually figure out how to best use it. Sure, formal training may be the quicker road, but it's certainly not the only road.

Oh, and by the way... Police work is, by definition, defensive. Yet many police are still issued fully-automatic weapons.


Anyway... it's been an interesting conversation.




J.C.
 
I have never chimed in on one of these topocs before, but I will now. I can see what both sides are saying here. I have my own opinion. that is what it is, my opinion. I dont own a ar or a ak, wish i did. couldnt afford one and sure couldnt afford to shoot it much. but having said that I will not give up the right to own them without a fight.
I am not a lawer or even overly educated, but I have read the constitution and the bill of rights. I have studied what the founding fathers have said about the SA and can only conclued that they were not just giving us the right to have hunting and self defence arms. but to have guns that were at least as good as a milatary force that might come for us.
does that mean fully auto guns? yes it does. what does it not give us the right to, nothing I can see. does that mean I want a machine gun no. but for those that do, and can afford it fine. so long as they dont use it to cause harm to others.
we have laws to stop us from causeing harm to some one else for a reason.
that is the point of the law to protect us from those who would do harm. doesnt matter if it is a gun or a knife or a car. inforce the law but dont make me give up my rights. the constitution didnt give me these rights ( at least acording to the founding fathers ). the constitution mearly innumerated some of them that they felt should be noted and never removed by law.
Sorry just a red neck Texacan`s take on it. thanks for some good ideas on it guys
 
I'm sure someone has already brought this up before, but how can you seriously not subscribe to the "give an inch, they'll take a mile" view? There are localities, and states that do just that right now.
Click to expand...
Mainly becuase it puts you into a mindset that makes us intractable. I think the NRA was wise to push free gun locks. Some people thought they were selling out. Many thought S&W did the same with gun locks on their revolvers. I did not. I haven't really dug into this aspect but here it is , We are talking about guns, not toasters, not TVs, not even cars (and I acknowledge they kill more people than firearms) but guns. They are dangerous and they are weapons. We also, are a very violent country. And while other causes kill people guns kill a lot each year. Therefore I choose to not adopt a religious view of the 2nd amendment while being blind to the violence that occurs about us. While I am a CCW holder (and own an AR-15) and am against gun free zones. I think the answer to some of these school and mall shootings (which I think are on the rise) need more thought than just "from my cold dead hands". Crazy people and felons should not be allowed to purchase firearms through legal law abiding channels such as gun shows, gun stores OR private sales. As gun owners we should be for that. I thik it irresponsible as some have said on the forum that "I sold the gun and I don't care what the man I sold it to does with it" We will never win the battle in the public arena with those mindsets and if we lose that battle ALL our guns will be gone someday. Now, maybe background checks don't work, so somebody tell me how else to do it. Saying you can't won't workand will cause more gun laws to be enacted. Saying you don't care will also get more gun laws enacted.

Now to the arms question. I will ask this again. If you 2A purists say that the civilian in the US is entitled to own ANY weapon we currently have in the military then I'm afraid you are in for a big let down in July. You ain't gonna get 'em and so maybe we better fight the battles we can win in DC and with handguns and AR-15 (although if a democrat is elected they are going gone!).
 
Before anyone else does it, can I just step in to bash TN Gent for saying guns killed people? TNG, consider yourself bashed, and please try to adopt our language around here so as not to make such provocative statements.

publiuspeacekeeper42
 
Before anyone else does it, can I just step in to bash TN Gent for saying guns killed people? TNG, consider yourself bashed, and please try to adopt our language around here so as not to make such provocative statements.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't think I've been bashing him.


We are talking about guns, not toasters, not TVs, not even cars (and I acknowledge they kill more people than firearms) but guns. They are dangerous and they are weapons. We also, are a very violent country. And while other causes kill people guns kill a lot each year. Therefore I choose to not adopt a religious view of the 2nd amendment while being blind to the violence that occurs about us.
Click to expand...

What you have done instead is remain blind to the fact that none of the feel good legislation has done nothing to curb the violence as evidenced by your examples of school and mall shootings.


While I am a CCW holder (and own an AR-15) and am against gun free zones. I think the answer to some of these school and mall shootings (which I think are on the rise) need more thought than just "from my cold dead hands". Crazy people and felons should not be allowed to purchase firearms through legal law abiding channels such as gun shows, gun stores OR private sales. As gun owners we should be for that.
Click to expand...

It's already illegal for a felon to buy or possess a gun the same with someone adjudicated mentally defective. You can't make it double illegal.


I thik it irresponsible as some have said on the forum that "I sold the gun and I don't care what the man I sold it to does with it" We will never win the battle in the public arena with those mindsets and if we lose that battle ALL our guns will be gone someday. Now, maybe background checks don't work, so somebody tell me how else to do it. Saying you can't won't workand will cause more gun laws to be enacted. Saying you don't care will also get more gun laws enacted.
Click to expand...


In case you haven't noticed the people you're trying to keep guns from are already prohibited from owning guns.
You never did answer my other question about why you feel that the seller should be responsible for the actions of someone he has no control over.

Now to the arms question. I will ask this again. If you 2A purists say that the civilian in the US is entitled to own ANY weapon we currently have in the military then I'm afraid you are in for a big let down in July. You ain't gonna get 'em and so maybe we better fight the battles we can win in DC and with handguns and AR-15 (although if a democrat is elected they are going gone!).
Click to expand...

As long as we have people who are willing to accept compromise speaking for us they will be gone also, albeit at a slower rate, but gone is gone. Kind of like killing you by dismembering you one part at a time over a long period.
 
I didn't mean you, Don, and don't want to become a scold around here. I just think TN Gent isn't such a bad guy, and has been equated to a Brady groupy, which isn't right. He did step deeper in it by referencing the "gun show" loophole and talking about guns killing people. I just wanted to correct that last one before it turned ugly. ;)
 
I didn't mean you, Don, and don't want to become a scold around here. I just think TN Gent isn't such a bad guy, and has been equated to a Brady groupy, which isn't right. He did step deeper in it by referencing the "gun show" loophole and talking about guns killing people. I just wanted to correct that last one before it turned ugly.
Click to expand...



That's cool, I'm actually enjoying the discussions he's opened. For the most part they've been pretty civil with a few exceptions. I wouldn't peg him as a Brady sympathizer, but IMHO definitely plays into their hand unwittingly.
 
Maybe the reason he gets those kinds of comments is because he has posted 83 times in the last year, and all but 8 of those posts have been virtual talking points for the antis.
 
Happy Easter!

To those of you who celebrate it! I am sorry I cannot answer all the posts, my grass is growing and I need to go back to work tomorrow.

Maybe the reason he gets those kinds of comments is because he has posted 83 times in the last year, and all but 8 of those posts have been virtual talking points for the antis.
Click to expand...

That's because I am busy doing other things. Sorry about that. Actually the funniest acutally hilarious part of this are those who think I am a "Plant" from the Brady Campaign:barf: Damn, some of you are paranoid! But I think it is funny!

Before anyone else does it, can I just step in to bash TN Gent for saying guns killed people? TNG, consider yourself bashed, and please try to adopt our language around here so as not to make such provocative statements.
Click to expand...

Bash away. Not being PC I often won't use the language you may want me to. The fact is a lot of people die each year needlessly from firearms. I know someone pulled the trigger but they used a gun. What did the autopsy say they died from gunshot wound or evil intentions? I cannot get over this idea most of you have that guns equate to toasters. :confused: When I was in the military we locked up our weapons, inventoried them constantly and counted the rounds of ammo as well and inventoried it too. We didn't do that with the Orderly Room coffee pot. I guess you could kill someone with one but we didn't take that kind of care with it.
Also, publius thanks for defending my right to speak here freely, although you don't have to. I ignore the others and while they think I am playing into the hands of the Brady's in reality THEY are the ones feeding their paranoid rants by their extremist views and what they don't see is by alienating others who aren't extreme they WILL one day lose more of their gun rights because they are outnumbered.
 
When I was in the military we locked up our weapons, inventoried them constantly and counted the rounds of ammo as well and inventoried it too.
Click to expand...

And you did those things because you thought the guns were gonna tear out on their own and start massacring people? No. It's done because of a knowledge of what some people are inclined to do with them.

That, and they cost a helluva lot more than a coffee pot.


J.C.
 
I'm not sure if this is the place for this question, but here it is: In Wash. D.C. if the individual is not permitted to protect himself, and the police are not required to protect him, just who the heck is responsible for his safety? I nderstand that by law the police are resonsible for the safety of society as a whole, not the individual. Has anyone ever asked this question? Has anyone ever offered an answer?
 
Guns are dangerous by nature.
Click to expand...

So's a car or truck, but anybody that wants one and has the money can buy one.

Sure, you have to be licensed to drive it on a public road, but you can still buy it without the license. You can even buy one that'll exceed the national speed limit by a factor of two or three. Won't even need to pay an extra tax for it, like you do with NFA weapons.

Looked up the stats on how many people die due to auto accidents each year? You think the vehicles did all that damage all by their lonesome?


Sorry, but I've long since gotten sick of, and entirely fed-up with the old "blame it on the inanimate object" nonsense. Human actions, whether intentional or unintentional, are what causes the deaths.

Next thing you know, we'll be blaming gravity for all those suicidal jumpers that want to take a high dive off a bridge, building, or other high spot.

Then again, maybe it's dirt and rock that should be banned... or water, even. Cut down on all those drownings... :rolleyes:


J.C.
 
So's a car or truck, but anybody that wants one and has the money can buy one.
Click to expand...

Oh yes the car analogy. Bad one too. A car is designed for transportation. It is not a weapon. A gun is a weapon. If it wasn't designed to kill injure or otherwise stop bad guys we would not own them for self-defense. Do you own a car for transportation or self-defense?
 
Do you own a car for transportation or self-defense?
Click to expand...

Get in front of me and threaten me, when I'm behind the wheel, and find out.

Fact is, I was taught at the police academy to do just that thing, in that situation. The instructors words were "You've got a 3000 pound weapon. Use it."

The fact is, guns are made to make holes in things. They do it up close, they do it from a distance. What a person chooses to make holes in with one is the defining factor. Sort of like "Vehicular Homicide" defines a particular act with a particular object.


J.C.
 
In Wash. D.C. if the individual is not permitted to protect himself, and the police are not required to protect him, just who the heck is responsible for his safety?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that the police are under no obligation to protect citizens. Since you specifically asked about DC, google Warren vs. District of Columbia.

Oh yes the car analogy. Bad one too.
Click to expand...
Yep! And planes are made for flying (until someone decides to use them as a weapon.)

Denny
 
Yep! And planes are made for flying (until someone decides to use them as a weapon.)
Click to expand...

The thought that had crossed my mind was "Yeah, and airliners weren't designed/intended to take down skyscrapers either, but they apparently do a bang-up job of it."



J.C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top