I realize I am in the minority with my views of what "ought" to be, versus what is, and has been for some time. And I do recognise that in today's world, we will not have what ought to be, if for no other reason decades of brainwashing about how dangerous full auto weapons are.
One thing that could also be another strong argument would be that when they wrote the second amendment, there weren't any firearms that could fire 600+ rounds of ammo at the squeeze of a trigger!
It sounds like a strong argument, until you look beyond the surface. The real flaw is basing the argument on what the founding fathers knew about, as being the applicable yardstick for determining what is Constitutionally protected or not.
The Founding Fathers didn't envision telephones, cell phones, the Internet, or any other "instant" means of communication, other than face to face speech. Under your argument, that would mean that only face to face speech (and printed materials produced on hand operated printing presses would be covered by the First Amendment!
I do not believe the NFA 34 is a necessary law. I would love to see it repealed. However, I know that is highly unlikely, and I would gladly accept living under the restrictions it imposes, even though I feel it serves no valid purpose. Note that in over 70 years of registered/restricted ownership of FA weapons (NOT a ban) there has only been single documented instance of a legally owned FA weapon being used in a crime (that I am aware of), and that one was done by an owner who was also a police officer (and it was not done in the course of his duty! Generally speaking, those people willing to go through the process to legally own a full auto do not use them to commit crimes.
Take the Virgina Tech shooter, Columbine, The mobsters from the 1920's, Bonnie and Clyde (Packed BAR's), The Hoddle Street and Queen Street Massacres
1920s gangsters were not breaking the 1934 NFA, as it did not exist at the time. And the others named, were all horrible crimes, committed in violation of many existing laws. How would breaking one more law have prevented any of that?
I don't think it comes down to the argument of competency versus incompetency, I believe that if you are competent, you should not have an issue with validating it to earn more rights. on the basis of your argument, anyone should have the right to drive a car without the necessity of a license.
Here is one difference in our points of view. I believe that rights are fundamental, natural rights, a consequence of one's existence. Rights are not earned. Ever. Earned is something one does for a privilege.
One does have the right to drive a car, without the necessity of a license. But one does not have the right to drive a car on
public highways without one. Note the difference, subtle though it is. A blind man can own a car, legally. But he can't get a license to drive it on public streets.
I see no valid reason to bar citizens from owning what they choose, as we already have lots and lots of laws covering how those things can be used in public! Therefore, since those who are willing to violate the laws about use are also willing to violate the laws about ownership, such laws do nothing except harass and restrict those willing to obey them. And laws like that do nothing to foster respect or goodwill towards the government, and those who's job is to enforce them.
without the NFA, it would be possible to own RPG's, grenade launchers, etc.
FYI, it is possible, and legal under the NFA to own RPGs, grenade launchers, etc., even artillery ammunition! Each round is an individual destructive device (explosive), and is tracked and licensed, but it is both possible and legal to own them, if a bit expensive.
Are you aware that the original NFA 34 (as proposed) did not include "silencers", but included
handguns? This was quickly changed, as the sponsors of the time recognised that they stood no chance at all of passage if they kept handguns in the bill, so silencers were inserted instead.
I realize I am more than a bit Darwinian in my views about these "dangerous" things, and that isn't mainstream thinking anymore. And so I am willing to accept reasonable compromise. However, I am not willing to allow others to define, solely by themselves, what reasonable is. One trouble with gun control laws (all of them to date) is the sponsors idea that reasonable means "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable".
I'd love to see the NFA laws turned back to what we had before 1934, but I realize that both the amount of time, and entrenched attitudes make that impossible. I recognize that the general population believes that "nobody needs a machinegun". Also that calling attention to this issue in public is a loser for us, unlike CCW and general ownership, which have recognisable benefits. For over 70 years the only press about machineguns in private hands has been bad. Everybody "knows" only bad guys have machineguns. Hollywood has been pushing machineguns in its entertainment productions for decades, and always in the hands of either a govt agent/soldier or a criminal. Tough to go against that kind of propaganda. The relative handful of shooters who fancy FA firearms, know that they are not evil dangerous things, anymore than any other firearm. But nobody else knows this, especially after having been told the opposite for generations. Most people only know that machineguns are illegal, and do not know about the NFA 34 process for owing them. Background checks, investigations, fingerprints, and more than anything else, approval of the head of
local law enforcement are required. That, to me is one of the better provisions of the NFA34, that local law must give approval. Who is more likely to be able to judge your character better? The people who live where you do, or a distant Fed bureaucrat?
What we have today is a couple of maturing generations who are discovering that while they may have the means and the desire to responsibly own FA weapons, they no longer have the legal ability, due to the Hughes Amendment.
So HERE IS MY QUESTION, as a responsible gun owner, would you support a bill that repealed the H.A. if it also required a training course to be taken, AND, as this relates to the second amendment, ( ... a well organized militia) be willing to serve in the military if called upon in a time of distress?
I would gladly support anything that allows the FA registry to be reopened. However, I feel that a requirement for a training course is a bad idea. Not because people should not have training, but simply because making it a govt requirement will lead to abuse by those in power who object to gun ownership in principle. Just look at what they did with the training course that was supposed to "allow" pilots to be armed!
Would you support the training course if, it was expensive, required you to travel to another part of the country, and spend a week or two (all at your expense) and was only given once every 3 years? IF you include a requirement for a training course, the antis will do every thing they can to make it as difficult to attend as possible. That's why I object.
As to serving in the military in time of distress? That is the duty of all citizens, gun owners or not. One may serve in ways other than combat, after all. We still have conscientious objector status, if your moral beliefs put you there.
)