You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Select-fire
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
maestro pistolero
New member
This has really ventured into the absurd. Please no more comments about privately held nukes. There have been a lot of valid, informed viewpoints brought forth, and this isn't one them. One more nuke post and I'll ask antipitas to pull the plug on this one.
Thanks.
OP
Thanks.
OP
Hoover got the Depression started. Hoover was no freemarket person despite what the government textbooks say. All FDR did was continue the failed policies of Hoover, only bigger, much like Obama is doing today with continuing Bush's failed policies.Dude, seriously: A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication by people who don't like what FDR did with labor laws and generally disapprove of government in the whole.
Hoover got the Depression started. Hoover was no freemarket person despite what the government textbooks say. All FDR did was continue the failed policies of Hoover, only bigger, much like Obama is doing today with continuing Bush's failed policies.
Again... history book. Hoover and FDR were pretty much diametric opposites as far as government policy went.
Anyway, back on topic, personally I think that the question that I haven't noticed anyone ask here is, would current NFA weapons really be "common" if they weren't as heavily regulated? I'm not so sure.
I'm sure they're fun to shoot, but full auto fire really isn't useful for much other than fun and war. And with those rates of fire, it's an awfully expensive way of having fun. Beyond that, nobody's going hunting with a machine gun, and nobody's going to be doing home defense with it. So even assuming that the NFA wasn't as much of a barrier, how many people are going to pay however much of a premium is placed on a full-auto weapon over a semi-auto only version?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the NFA registry opened up again simply to make sure people have the choice, but I think that the assumption of full auto as being something that a lot more people would go for if it were available needs to be reexamined.
But select fire gives you a choice. How many AR15's and M4gery rifles are sold each year? Given the popularity of those rifles, it is likely that select fire would be more widespread.
I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme. After all, when a new weapon is invented, it is by definition not in common use. Should we ever see the invention of the "plasma rifle in 40 watt range" it will be unobtainable, because it will not be in common use on the day it is invented, thus not protected by the COTUS. That to me is as absurd as saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to blogs, because they were not in common use in 1986.
I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme. After all, when a new weapon is invented, it is by definition not in common use. Should we ever see the invention of the "plasma rifle in 40 watt range" it will be unobtainable, because it will not be in common use on the day it is invented, thus not protected by the COTUS. That to me is as absurd as saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to blogs, because they were not in common use in 1986.
maestro pistolero
New member
Even in warfare, automatic fire has limited but specific uses such as area denial. There is a reason that the average soldier has, at most, 3 round burst.
What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.
So even assuming that the NFA wasn't as much of a barrier, how many people are going to pay however much of a premium is placed on a full-auto weapon over a semi-auto only version?
What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.
Actually, some select fire guns would be cheaper, like open bolt subguns. Much easier and simpler to make than semi-auto only guns.What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.
Big Hint - if we say that a topic is off base - drop it.
GM
If the NFA registry were opened up tomorrow, and the paperwork streamlined, I guarantee you full-auto or select fire weapons would still be more expensive simply because they have more features. Besides which, the people who can afford to fire them on full auto more than a couple times for fun are the people for whom the extra cost doesn't matter as much. In other words, they'd be priced as a luxury item for a more upscale type of shooter than the average guy who's buying an AR-15.
For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.
GM
If the NFA registry were opened up tomorrow, and the paperwork streamlined, I guarantee you full-auto or select fire weapons would still be more expensive simply because they have more features. Besides which, the people who can afford to fire them on full auto more than a couple times for fun are the people for whom the extra cost doesn't matter as much. In other words, they'd be priced as a luxury item for a more upscale type of shooter than the average guy who's buying an AR-15.
For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.
My SOT has mentioned that back in the early 80's before the registry closed, select fire M-16's tended to cost only a couple hundred dollars more than an AR-15. You could get an AR-15 for $700 and an M-16 for $900-1,000.For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
divemedic said:I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme.
Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. However, I think it is a useful way to draw the bright line. Seems pretty clear to me that "in common use" means in common use for civilian purposes of self defense, sport and hunting. FA is not in that mix and never really was. The fact that there were only 118,000 legally registered out of hundreds of millions of other guns in 1986 when the tax and cost to own were not prohibitive shows that to be true. So, SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use by civilians. The circular argument was handled by Gura in that clip and the NFA still stands.
Crosshair said:that back in the early 80's before the registry closed,select fire M-16's tended to cost only a couple hundred dollars more than an AR-15. You could get an AR-15 for $700 and an M-16 for $900-1,000.
And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.
maestro pistolero said:Even in warfare, automatic fire has limited but specific uses such as area denial.
Fire suppression is the other (anti-aircraft perhaps) and that is why I believe they (FA) are unsuitable for civilian self defense.
In the early 1980's the $200 NFA tax was the equivalent of over $400 today, dampening some interest in them. Information on acquiring and owning them was not as readily available as it is today. Recently I've seen an upswing in NFA ownership due to the gov debasing of our money whittling away at the NFA tax.And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.
Saying full auto were never in common use in the 1980's is like saying that PCs weren't in common use in the 1980's. There simply wasn't much interest in them by most of the population at the time.
How can you know that FA would not be in the mix if the NFA didn't exist? You're drawing conclusions based on circular reasoning.Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. However, I think it is a useful way to draw the bright line. Seems pretty clear to me that "in common use" means in common use for civilian purposes of self defense, sport and hunting. FA is not in that mix and never really was.
Suppose Congress had imposed a $2000 tax on computers in 1980, and today few people had them. Would you then support the notion that the 1st amendment doesn't protect blogs or websites today because computers wouldn't be in common use?
And look how few people legally owned [select-fire M16s]. More proof they were never in common use.
Most people obviously thought that select-fire wasn't worth the extra few hundred dollars. However, that does not prove that select-fire would be unpopular if it were unregulated. Even for people who spend a lot on guns, $200 is enough for many good C&R firearms. Why would anyone spend that extra $200 and wade through the paperwork unless they're genuine gun nuts who have lots of land or somewhere they can actually use full auto?
maestro pistolero
New member
The common use test is overrated as binding. We know it is one measure that the Heller court brought out in dicta, and we also know it is subject to be undermined by the circular logic rationale. At best, it needs clarification.
As time goes on, new weapons will inevitably come into use, and may be in uncommon use for some time as they gain in usefulness and popularity.
As commonly understood, the circular logic inherent in the common use test could be used to preemptively end the introduction of new, modern self defense technology into the mainstream. Over time, this would be the future equivalent of freezing the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment to swords, daggers, and muskets.
As time goes on, new weapons will inevitably come into use, and may be in uncommon use for some time as they gain in usefulness and popularity.
As commonly understood, the circular logic inherent in the common use test could be used to preemptively end the introduction of new, modern self defense technology into the mainstream. Over time, this would be the future equivalent of freezing the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment to swords, daggers, and muskets.
So can we apply the common use test to the rest of the BOR?
Only common religions are protected, only popular speech is protected, your home can be searched for uncommon items without warrant.
Sorry, "common use" is a fiction that was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. If the people want to add "common use" to the COTUS, amend it, but having the court amend the constitution through a declaration is not the way it is supposed to work.
Only common religions are protected, only popular speech is protected, your home can be searched for uncommon items without warrant.
Sorry, "common use" is a fiction that was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. If the people want to add "common use" to the COTUS, amend it, but having the court amend the constitution through a declaration is not the way it is supposed to work.
Agreed. Problem is, this is what the SCOTUS does and has traditionally done for centuries - devised tests and scrutinies and so forth based not on constitutionally valid grounds but on its own tortured, conflicted "logic". And stare decisis then conveniently keeps the body hidden from subsequent criticism and repair.Sorry, "common use" is a fiction that was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. If the people want to add "common use" to the COTUS, amend it, but having the court amend the constitution through a declaration is not the way it is supposed to work.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Comparing FA to computers and equating the SCOTUS criteria of "in common use" to other civil rights is silly. In Common Use is a reasonable criteria to determine what type of firearms are protected by the 2A. The real truth is what Gura spoke about. FA is not in common use not because of the NFA, cost or any other tax. They have never been in common use because they are unsuitable for civilian use. Period. This other stuff is wishful thinking by gun nuts. The courts will not support you on FA so the only route you can go is thru the legislature and if 70 percent of the good 'ole boys of Alabama don't think folk should own them, well...good luck. Oh and BTW the militia argument won't work. Mr Warin tried and failed in 1976.
They have never been in common use because they are unsuitable for civilian use. Period.
In your opinion. I suitably use mine frequently.
Comparing FA to computers and equating the SCOTUS criteria of "in common use" to other civil rights is silly. In Common Use is a reasonable criteria to determine what type of firearms are protected by the 2A. The real truth is what Gura spoke about. FA is not in common use not because of the NFA, cost or any other tax. They have never been in common use because they are unsuitable for civilian use. Period. This other stuff is wishful thinking by gun nuts. The courts will not support you on FA so the only route you can go is thru the legislature and if 70 percent of the good 'ole boys of Alabama don't think folk should own them, well...good luck. Oh and BTW the militia argument won't work. Mr Warin tried and failed in 1976.
Using your logic, the only guns that are protected by the 2A are muskets, they being the only guns that were in common use when the 2A was ratified. Same goes today- any technological breakthroughs are not protected, since being new, they cannot be in common use. The 40 watt Plasma rifle is not protected by the 2A, as it has not been invented yet.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.