rwilson452
New member
To quote one of my favorite authors, "There are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men." I could throw that one from Seneca the younger out but most folks here know that one too.
Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Watch out for those toasters!
CGSteve8718
New member
Well, this point may seem like a sidetrack but it is important to the select fire and even semi automatic weapons and their use in crime.
Like someone pointed out, there are not that many select fire weapons in common use because they have been essentially barred from common use for quite some time.
When I was in school as a criminal justice major, the stats actually don't show to either help or hurt us in terms of gun ownership and crime. Whether pro, or anti gun, the laws either way actually didn't show any correlation to the increase or decline in criminal activity.
Now, no one is stupid here, so we know the causes are larger issues such as education, ecomony, etc. etc. But mainly, the street violence and "public safety" issue that everyone is so concerned with is due almost entirely to legislation that is non gun related. My case in point here is the "war on drugs".
To make drugs relevant in our street crime and violence today, I'm going to go back to the 20s and 30s of Prohibition era America. This was pre machine gun tax and if it wasn't for the Volstead Act, there would have been virtually NO violence using machine guns or any other guns. But naturally, when you have stupid legislation that was impossible to enforce, you have an incredible entrepreneuring activity for the criminal element. And this is where the almost weekly violence in the streets of America stemmed from, over distillation and distribution rights, and turf wars, etc. of the gangsters and mobsters of the era which are now infamous through Hollywood and print media. So, again naturally, the stupidity of the public, and the elected officials placed the blame for this violence on the machine guns and we have our first anti gun legislation.
You know where I'm going next, fast forward to today. No firearms, automatic or otherwise would be a "problem" if it were not for the failure that is the "war on drugs". I place "problem" in quotes because with over 300 million guns in the US, and only 3000 some deaths a year (according to the Brady Center), those numbers turn out to be an insignificant percentage. So in reality, there is no problem at all. To further muddy the waters, the Brady Center does not help put things in context because they also don't say where the majority of this "gun violence", and harm "caused" by firearms is occurring, which is in the large metropolitan areas where the gangs are fighting over the same things their Irish, Italian, and Jewish counterparts (albeit they were classier breed of criminals) did in the 20s, turf control, distribution rights, except over drugs instead of alcohol.
Furthermore, these end users of firearms do not appreciate them like many members of this forum do. They don't care about history, or appreciate machinery. Thusly, they will not treat them in the responsible manner that many of us would. So, many of these "accidents" etc. from firearms is from irresponsible people to begin with, not to mention in homes where there is undoubtedly some form of criminal activity going on. This is also where the horrible tragedies involving children getting harmed by the guns come from as well, because logically, these wouldn't be the most responsible parents.
So, my point is, what kind of weapon it is, is really irrelevant to a public safety conern, because there isn't much of a public safety concern. Not to mention, that practically, a semi auto rifle or "SMG" when used in a disciplined manner isn't any less dangerous than its select fire military cousin, and we already have millions of them around, but a very small percentage of crime using firearms, are with these types of guns.
But all of this "sociology" is an aside from what is protected under the 2A, which the majority of you have already gone over. We all draw the line somewhere, but drawing the line to exclude machine guns is anathema to the meaning of the 2A.
Like someone pointed out, there are not that many select fire weapons in common use because they have been essentially barred from common use for quite some time.
When I was in school as a criminal justice major, the stats actually don't show to either help or hurt us in terms of gun ownership and crime. Whether pro, or anti gun, the laws either way actually didn't show any correlation to the increase or decline in criminal activity.
Now, no one is stupid here, so we know the causes are larger issues such as education, ecomony, etc. etc. But mainly, the street violence and "public safety" issue that everyone is so concerned with is due almost entirely to legislation that is non gun related. My case in point here is the "war on drugs".
To make drugs relevant in our street crime and violence today, I'm going to go back to the 20s and 30s of Prohibition era America. This was pre machine gun tax and if it wasn't for the Volstead Act, there would have been virtually NO violence using machine guns or any other guns. But naturally, when you have stupid legislation that was impossible to enforce, you have an incredible entrepreneuring activity for the criminal element. And this is where the almost weekly violence in the streets of America stemmed from, over distillation and distribution rights, and turf wars, etc. of the gangsters and mobsters of the era which are now infamous through Hollywood and print media. So, again naturally, the stupidity of the public, and the elected officials placed the blame for this violence on the machine guns and we have our first anti gun legislation.
You know where I'm going next, fast forward to today. No firearms, automatic or otherwise would be a "problem" if it were not for the failure that is the "war on drugs". I place "problem" in quotes because with over 300 million guns in the US, and only 3000 some deaths a year (according to the Brady Center), those numbers turn out to be an insignificant percentage. So in reality, there is no problem at all. To further muddy the waters, the Brady Center does not help put things in context because they also don't say where the majority of this "gun violence", and harm "caused" by firearms is occurring, which is in the large metropolitan areas where the gangs are fighting over the same things their Irish, Italian, and Jewish counterparts (albeit they were classier breed of criminals) did in the 20s, turf control, distribution rights, except over drugs instead of alcohol.
Furthermore, these end users of firearms do not appreciate them like many members of this forum do. They don't care about history, or appreciate machinery. Thusly, they will not treat them in the responsible manner that many of us would. So, many of these "accidents" etc. from firearms is from irresponsible people to begin with, not to mention in homes where there is undoubtedly some form of criminal activity going on. This is also where the horrible tragedies involving children getting harmed by the guns come from as well, because logically, these wouldn't be the most responsible parents.
So, my point is, what kind of weapon it is, is really irrelevant to a public safety conern, because there isn't much of a public safety concern. Not to mention, that practically, a semi auto rifle or "SMG" when used in a disciplined manner isn't any less dangerous than its select fire military cousin, and we already have millions of them around, but a very small percentage of crime using firearms, are with these types of guns.
But all of this "sociology" is an aside from what is protected under the 2A, which the majority of you have already gone over. We all draw the line somewhere, but drawing the line to exclude machine guns is anathema to the meaning of the 2A.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Where would you draw the line and why? Remember the slippery slope argument being promulgated here! If you can ban one you can ban them all!
I agree that criminal violence in many areas may well be associated with the "War on Drugs" and other sociology reasons. But what about the school/mall/whereever mass killing suiciders? Where are they coming from and are they obtaining firearms through legal channels?
44capnball
New member
Bingo!
Although re-outlawing murder and robbery might be a good re-election ploy these days, what with the short attention span of voters. You know, get tough on crime.
Come to think of it, re-outlawing might be a bit draconian. I was thinking a registration or permit system, that would really discourage murderers and robbers.
Licensing and permits would cut down on the availability of murder and robbery to criminals. This is a public safety issue, clearly.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Actually, Mr. Gura did not propose strict scrutiny but a lesser test. The reason I ask this is my purists friends say that civilians should be able to own ANY arm they can afford to buy. That could mean rocket launchers and grenades.
Not trying to make it double illegal. Just want the tool to help private sellers know whether they were selling to a person who was prohibited from owning a firearm. I would rather pay the fee to check their background than sell them a gun and find out later they were insane and shouldn't have the gun. How else would I know?
BoringAccountant
New member
Again...its not how you or I would draw the line but how the COTUS was written. If we could start there and agree on what it means then we would logically hold all laws up to it as a litmus test. Does bill X agree with 2A? No, then it does not become law.
TG, I see where you are coming from, I actually started there a few years ago, then I came to TFL and did my homework and read some. Not saying you didn't or don't know, but I think your confidence lies to much on the government handling things rather than personal responsibility. Stick around TFL for a while and we will "convert" you
"The Line" should always be drawn exactly as it is worded in the COTUS and in the applicable legislation which does not violate the COTUS. If it comes to an issue of "interpretation" then the line should always be drawn on the side of the right of the people, as the COTUS was written to begin with.
If you do not like it then pass a law that is legal under the COTUS or an Amendment. Do not though complain the the court did not reinterpret a law to follow your social Utopian goals irregardless of the rights in the COTUS and resting with the people. Change comes from the Legislature, not the Judiciary.
I guess they stopped teaching that in school!
If you do not like it then pass a law that is legal under the COTUS or an Amendment. Do not though complain the the court did not reinterpret a law to follow your social Utopian goals irregardless of the rights in the COTUS and resting with the people. Change comes from the Legislature, not the Judiciary.
I guess they stopped teaching that in school!
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Just don't sell to a crazy
Perhaps. Probably not on this issue. I do have a somewhat institutional prejudice. As a retired military guy I am sorry to report that I do not have a lot of faith in my civilian friends to be good combat soldiers that many of them seem to want to be. I know that real military combat proficiency requires training, discipline and training (did I say that twice). This unorganzied militia thing armed with military weapons that some here promulgate gives me the willies. I think changes in warfare and our current civilian population are not viable adjuncts to the US military. I just don't read the 2A to protect the right of civilians to possess certain military weaponry. In many cases people do today have these arms but it's heavily regulated. I do not believe that even banning machine guns and rocket launchers automatically or even necessarily mean we will lose our rights to bear arms. Change does not always come from the legislature. The executive branch desegregated our armed forces in 1948 and the courts desegeragated our schools in 1954. Change comes from all branches of government.
Tennessee Gentleman wrote:
Just want the tool to help private sellers know whether they were selling to a person who was prohibited from owning a firearm.
If that's all you want, shoot, that's an easy one. You put a chip under their skin and let gun owners have a free scanner in the case they ever want to sell a firearm. They just scan the guy and see if he comes up as "prohibited".
Of course, I'd change the law to only prohibit violent felons and those who have been committed INVOLUNTARILY to a mental institution.
I'm sure criminals would find a way to defeat this eventually, but what else is new. I thought this was about "feeling" as though we were doing something to prevent criminals from getting guns. Lord knows that none of the fire engulfed hoops we're making all of the law abiding gun owners jump through are doing any good. So it must be about feeling as though we're doing some good, vs. actually doing much good.
Just want the tool to help private sellers know whether they were selling to a person who was prohibited from owning a firearm.
If that's all you want, shoot, that's an easy one. You put a chip under their skin and let gun owners have a free scanner in the case they ever want to sell a firearm. They just scan the guy and see if he comes up as "prohibited".
Of course, I'd change the law to only prohibit violent felons and those who have been committed INVOLUNTARILY to a mental institution.
I'm sure criminals would find a way to defeat this eventually, but what else is new. I thought this was about "feeling" as though we were doing something to prevent criminals from getting guns. Lord knows that none of the fire engulfed hoops we're making all of the law abiding gun owners jump through are doing any good. So it must be about feeling as though we're doing some good, vs. actually doing much good.
BoringAccountant
New member
100% agreed...completely. There are a lot if internet commandos and crazies on here I would not trust with a gun, but would not that just make YOU yourself want to be sure you could arm yourself with the proper weaponry to defend against those?
Second, I know most of us will say that this 2A was placed in there to prevent tyranny from government again. I completely agree it was, and chances of that happening again are slim to none, but in the event it does happen 200 years from now long after I am gone, I do not want to be the one that let any type of legislation through that did not match up to the COTUS. Is the COTUS perfect? Hell no, far from it, I mean look at the amendments we had to pass, slavery is the first to come to mind, but I think this BOR was spot on and will stand the test of time if we follow it.
Last point, I think BillCA has it right with his opinions on this issue. I just reread them again.
How come I didn't get any of that high speed training? I remember getting smoked, grabbing a rifle, getting smoked , being crated off in a cattle car to the range, getting off, getting smoked some more, getting handed ammo, being yelled at, then getting in a fox hole and shooting green targets, then getting smoked again. Wonderful army haze... I mean training..
The most (useful) training I got in the Army was a crash course in Kuwait given by a civilian as we were heading up to Iraq. We got a bunch of magazines full of ammo and practiced firing in various positions both stationary and moving. The instructor just gave pointers as we went along but stressed the most important thing was to find what you were comfortable with.
Experience is the most valuable instructor. I think thats part of the thinking behind the second amendment.
I don't believe the militia, especially the unorganized portion, is meant to provide good combat soldiers. It's meant to provide people who are armed and very familiar with their surroundings to try and hold an attacking force or an attacking group of people at bay until the real help can arrive. You could surround a key target (water supply) with armed citizens and they may be quite effective at defending such a target, at least for a short time. The idea would be to make it hard for the enemy to attack, and cause them to waste time, ammo, and people, so that when the real help arrives, the situation could be stabilized all that more quickly. I don't think we'd talk about sending the unorganized militia out for offensive attacks to take and hold ground, unless we were really desparate. Against well armed, and well trained combat soldiers, you are probably correct, the armed citizens wouldn't last long. But when hidden around a key target and with firearms they are trained to shoot accurately with, they may take down a lot of the enemy. They'd be fighting on their turf. This is not much different than the VC and how they fought much superior troops. They didn't last long in a balls out firefight, but they sure caused a lot of deaths and demoralizing for our soldiers.
The unorganized militia could help off load some demands from the military and national guard while they deal with more pressing problems. It's designed to augment the military, not replace it. Besides, you might find that a lot of guys who are now civilians and enjoy the right to keep and bear arms, have been trained with M16's or other military style hardware, or AR15's and handguns, and semiauto deer rifles and bolt action sniper rifles with scopes, etc. All part of civilian hardware, except the M16 for the most part.
The unorganized militia could help off load some demands from the military and national guard while they deal with more pressing problems. It's designed to augment the military, not replace it. Besides, you might find that a lot of guys who are now civilians and enjoy the right to keep and bear arms, have been trained with M16's or other military style hardware, or AR15's and handguns, and semiauto deer rifles and bolt action sniper rifles with scopes, etc. All part of civilian hardware, except the M16 for the most part.
Well, I'll try not to frighten you, but that was (and is) the meaning of the second amendment. Let's leave out the rockets and grenades and stuff for a minute and just get back to a question I asked:
What's the problem with the happy switch? Most people who are afraid of widespread civilian ownership of machine guns don't understand that it really isn't very different from widespread civilian ownership of AR-15's and the like. I'm certain you DO understand that, so I'm left wondering what the problem is?
BoringAccountant said:
Imagine this for a moment:
2009: The new Democrat President and a Democrat Congress repeal CCW rights nationwide.
2011: After a achieving a veto-proof Congressional majority in the mid-term elections, the President and Congress institute national firearms registration.
2112: Following the worst school shooting in history, the President proposes and easily passes, expedited seizure of all firearms not specifically for hunting purposes, (defined as all autoloading weapons).
2013: On the heels of a close and bitter re-election victory, the President declares that his opponent's influence represents a threat to public safety, several are restricted to house-detention.
2014: At the approach of mid-term elections, there is widespread rioting. The President "reluctantly" issues martial law restrictions in the "rogue, seperatist" areas, and seizes all registered firearms.
2016: Many mid-term election seats are still unresolved and bitterly contested. Charges of election fraud muddle and slow progress. Many office-holders are viewed as illegitimate. Civil strife is rampant. The economy is in a death spiral. Facing term limitations, the President broadens military control of major population areas.....