Select-fire

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well said 44 AMP, I like your post. A couple of thoughts;

On the other are those who believe that machinguns/assault weapons (et.al) should either be highly restricted or outright prohibited, for public safety. Many of these people feel thins way about all firearms, but many do not.
And the middle ground, people who believe that while the govt has a valid interest in regulating possession of these weapons, restrictions should reasonable and not be overly onerous.

I don't see as much separation between the two camps mentioned above. I am in the camp that the 2A is not an absolute right that breaks down into anygun, anyone and anywhere but may be reasonably regulated. The key to the middle ground is the word onerous. Lots of latitude there and when you say the government has a valid interest in regulating FA well, that is because of public safety as the position above the middle ground states.

We do this, again in two camps, those who believe rights do not exist until a court says they do, and those who believe that rights exist until a court rules they do not!

Which camp are you in?

I don't believe the courts establish rights but they do interpret laws to see if they conflict with a right and further interprets what the right entitles you to do.

Some on TFL believe THEY determine what the right is (like the 2A) by their personal reasoning of what they believe COTUS says and that you must show/convince them that it is not so or you are infringing on their rights. I think Glenn Meyer calls this the chortling choir. But that is what forums are for I guess.

I do not find the NFA to be an infringement. It may be said reasonably that the NFA is the reason why there has been virtually no crimes committed by legally owned FA since the law was enacted. In that regard the NFA has been successful. Which brings me to the Hughes amendment in which as I have said earlier you might have a point since it's enactment creates an arguable de facto ban.

Has anyone challenged Hughes in court? I do not know. A good strategy might be to use the amendment method that was used to allow CCW in National Parks. The problem there as Alan Gura has said before, outside the gun culture there is not a lot of support for FA.

As to the felony/reinstatement of rights I am a believer in "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" but if a person could show they had changed their ways sufficiently AND PAID ALL LEGAL COSTS assoicated with the hearing then I would be OK with that as well. That way they have to pay the price to restore their rights that they willingly gave up when they transgressed.

 

[RDak]

TG: Members at other gunsites have said there are rumors the Hughes Amendment will be challenged at a later date.

I have no idea if this is true. Just heresay.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Interesting RDak, I am surprised it has not been legally challenged before. I agree with most folk on TFL that it was stupid legislation and was aimed at derailing the FOPA. Does nothing but run up the price of FA. Man, I wish I had bought an M-16 back when I could have gotten one for a few hundred bucks and then sold it today for 30K!

 

[TEDDY]

nfa

all of you were born after WW2.I was not.
you need to do some research before you post.the NG was organized in 1903/6.prier to that there was a small national army.most soldiers of the civil war were in volunteer units.it was still so in the spanish american war.roosevelts riders were a volunteer army armed by roosevelt,as were many civil war units.in CW the units bought their Spensers and Winchesters themselves.in WW1 the NG was disbanded and personal intergrated in the army.after WW1 they rejoined the guard.in 1934 the NG was intergrated in to the army reserve.so the NG is not militia.it is national army.there are several organized militias.texas has one and Mass and RI that I remember.
mariums were used in the 1880 period by the British in Africa.and there was
a repeating firearm in 1500?it was rotory and flintlock fired.and the gatling and about 8 other arms were used in the civil war.machine guns were made with more advanced machinery than needed for rifles or pistols.most all the MGs were brought back from WW1 but many from WW2.and there are tanks and artillery in private hands. I know where there are a number.
not to mention theres thousands of MG and sub guns not registered.
I know where there are migs 15/17/21.in private hands.plus cobras fully armed.and at least one B25 with the 75 mm in the nose.B17 and B25 P40s.
I could go on.before WW2 I could get any thing I wanted.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

prier to that there was a small national army.most soldiers of the civil war were in volunteer units.it was still so in the spanish american war.roosevelts riders were a volunteer army armed by roosevelt,as were many civil war units.

Yes that is true and it was a mess particularly in the Spanish American War. Many of these units were untrained and their states didn't want to pay to keep them up and felt the Fed should do it but the Fed thought otherwise. As a result the Militia Act of 1903 was passed replacing the state militias with the National Guard which the was called the Organized Militia and much later was federalized to a greater degree.

in CW the units bought their Spensers and Winchesters themselves.

Some did but not all and it caused logistical problems as that type of system would with firearms using multiple types of ammo in a military environment. Today it is against regulations to bring personal firearms along with you to combat and for good reason.

not to mention theres thousands of MG and sub guns not registered.

Got any evidence of that? Also, you know those who have them are breaking the law and are criminals.

I know where there are migs 15/17/21.in private hands.plus cobras fully armed.and at least one B25 with the 75 mm in the nose.B17 and B25 P40s.

The aircraft may be in private hands but I doubt your claim that they are armed with fully functioning armaments and ammo. If they are then it is very expensive or illegal. I doubt your claim.

I could go on.before WW2 I could get any thing I wanted.

Really? Did you? If not why not? Would it have been legal? The NFA was enacted in 1934. Would you say those weapons were "in common use"?

 

[maestro pistolero]

As the legislative history of the Act under consideration clearly shows, (p.108)Congress was dealing with problems which threaten the maintenance of public order. There can be no question that an organized society which fails to regulate the importation, manufacture and transfer of the highly sophisticated lethal weapons in existence today does so at its peril. The requirement that no one may possess a submachine gun which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record is a reasonable regulation for the maintenance of public order.

Except we all know that in effect the NFA goes much further, in fact all but assures the eventual disappearance of FA from public hands. The closing of the registration, combined with the requirement for registration creates a ban.

Perhaps a higher level of required training, screening, and safe storage requirement would be in order, but to support an outright ban is to undermine the amendment for one of it's primary purposes, the ability of the common man to resist and overthrow a future tyrannical government.

TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A? If not, how can you reconcile such a disparity in the arms available to accomplish the purpose should the need arise?

(for the record, we are nowhere near tyranny, IMO and our democratic institutions are working as they should, unless and until we lose the ability to throw the bums out)

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Except we all know that in effect the NFA goes much further, in fact all but assures the eventual disappearance of FA from public hands.

The 1934 NFA does no such thing. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 could be argued to do such. In that regard I think a constitutional challenge would be interesting to see. Otherwise, I think legislation might do better.

TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A?

Yes, as it pertains to the individual right. No, as it pertains to the state militia. The individual right pertains I believe to the individual right of personal self defense. My readings of history and the COTUS debates lead me to believe such.

The 2A was insisted upon by the anti-federalists who feared a large standing army AND the unprecendented control given Congress by the COTUS to control the militia.

The idea was that with a small standing army and the defense of the nation thus mostly in the hands of large state militias that a tyrant could not oppose such because the state militias would be more powerful than the national army and would serve as a check against tyranny.

The anti-fedieralists feared that if the states were not able to arm their militias that the Fed could then disarm them and render them ineffective. Thus the Second Amendment.

The historical irony is that in the end the states themselves sold out their militias because their citizens did not want to serve in them and the states did not want to pay for them.

If not, how can you reconcile such a disparity in the arms available to accomplish the purpose should the need arise?

There are some who argue, without any historical or legal basis, as you alllude to that "out there somewhere" is this "citizen's militia" that is unorganized, untrained, unlead, unfamiliar with each other with no accountability to any constitutional government that will in a time of crisis rise up as one with their military weapons and defeat tyranny. They provide esoteric and idealistic quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Tench Coxe and others that they feel support their premise.

The historical facts of course are quite different. No such thing (even pre-constitution in the colonies) EVER existed in that manner. Pure fantasy. In fact in the case of Jefferson he later ruefully admitted that the republican ideal of the militia he dreamed of could never be.

So back to your question, as far as military weapons (FA et al) if the STATE lawfully formed a militia they could if they chose arm them with such weapons and Congress could not prevent it.

The individual may not claim such a right even as a member of the unorganized militia under which one has no rights, duties or responsibilites under the 2A.

For more information on the militia, here is a resource: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp

 

[maestro pistolero]

The 1934 NFA does no such thing. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 could be argued to do such.

Right, I stand corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A?
Yes, as it pertains to the individual right. No, as it pertains to the state militia. The individual right pertains I believe to the individual right of personal self defense. My readings of history and the COTUS debates lead me to believe such.

Well, then, if the militia is dead, as you say, then so is the right to armed resistance to tyranny, right? How would you account for this gaping hole in the ability of citizens to overthrow a genuine tyranny? We just allow a lowly militia act to supersede the constitution?

There are some who argue, without any historical or legal basis, as you alllude to that "out there somewhere" is this "citizen's militia" that is unorganized, untrained, unlead, unfamiliar with each other with no accountability to any constitutional government that will in a time of crisis rise up as one with their military weapons and defeat tyranny.

That sounds like a description of the American revolution itself; it is hardly without any historical basis, and you know that. As to the lack of training, or unfamiliarity with each other, that is a temporary weakness that could be corrected should the need arise. Actual boot camp is, what, 8-10 weeks? You get my point. The ability to be sufficiently armed is what cannot be easily rectified if the guns were gone. Again, this is hypothetical, not some whack-job's call to arms.

Seriously, TG, aren't you the least bit concerned, that over time, let's say a couple hundred more years, that the worst fears of our founders could become a reality? Do you trust government so much that you would allow even the tiniest crack in the dam to go unrepaired?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, then, if the militia is dead, as you say, then so is the right to armed resistance to tyranny, right?

I was reading an interesting part of that new book about Clinton and fighting the NRA. The quote said that in times of emergency the people tend to call for more government involvement not less. But I digress. I think in the age of a mature liberal democratic society we live in today talking about armed insurrection falls rather flat. And before you trot out the usual suspects of Nazi Germany and Stalin remember that none of them ever had the type of democratic institutions we possess today. The great danger today to freedom is apathy in not participating in the political process not a lack of machineguns in Joe Citizen's hands.

That sounds like a description of the revolution itself.

No, the Revolution happened because there was no other political recourse. We have such today.

It is hardly without any historical basis, and you know that. As to the lack of training, or unfamiliarity with each other, that is a temporary weakness that could be corrected should the need arise. Actual boot camp is, what, 8-10 weeks?

Not to be insulting but that statement made me chuckle some. In my previous profession we would call such an organization a Charlie Foxtrot. No, you cannot form an effective force in 8-10 weeks. Maybe on Red Dawn but not in real life and the militias were NEVER such a thing. They had a predetermined leadership, organization and they trained together (albeit some better than others with New England being the best).

The ability to be sufficiently armed is what cannot be easily rectified if the guns were gone.

Well heck, based on that scenario just go break into your local NG or Reserve armory and load up! Drive the tanks and arty out the gate and go to town. You can get the small arms ammo from the guns stores you loot! Just kidding!

Seriously, TG, aren't you the least bit concerned, that over time, let's say a couple hundred more years, that the worst fears of our founders could become a reality?

233 years and counting!

 

[maestro pistolero]

In my previous profession we would call such an organization a Charlie Foxtrot. No, you cannot form an effective force in 8-10 weeks.

I think there might be a qualified patriot or two who would step into leadership positions. We send our kids into battle with no more experience than that. The Militia defeated what was considered the greatest army in the world at the time, in part, because they were more clever, and there was no disparity in the performance of their small arms.

No, the Revolution happened because there was no other political recourse.

Isn't that nearly a definition of tyranny? If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think there might be a qualified patriot or two who would step into leadership positions.

Who? Why not get that guy or gal to run for office? They would do a lot better in that capacity.

We send our kids into battle with no more experience than that.

No we don't.

The Militia defeated what was considered the greatest army in the world at the time, in part, because they were more clever, and there was no disparity in the performance of their small arms.

The Continental Army with the great help of the French and a United Kingdom embroiled in a war with France sort of helped out. BTW Washington spoke against the militia that were used and the Virginia militia let the British occupy Thomas Jefferson's home. He soon saw the folly of the idea and militia began to fade.

If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

Correct! Which is why the insurrection talk is moot. BTW we aren't colonies anymore. We never had any political recourse with Great Britain.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

Correct! Which is why the insurrection talk is moot. BTW we aren't colonies anymore. We never had any political recourse with Great Britain.

And if ever there weren't recourse again? Are you saying it's impossible? I, too, find it extremely unlikely in the short term. But government doesn't tend get to smaller and expand rights over time. You'd have to be an ostrich not to see which way this inclines.

Is it really so inconceivable, that over time, the government could cross the line to despotism? Isn't that possibility a primary reason the right was codified in the first place? I just don't see how one can toss that aside without a concern in the world for the freedom of future generations.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And if ever there weren't recourse again? Are you saying it's impossible?

Theoretically nothing is impossible. Chemical pollution may one day cause the dead to rise and eat us but I don't prepare for that.

But government doesn't tend get to smaller and expand rights over time.

And yet during our 233 years the government has expanded AND so have our civil rights. Don't believe it? Go read the Alien and Sedition Acts from 1798.

Is it really so inconceivable, that over time, the government could cross the line to despotism?

Yes, in the way many of you on TFL feel it will.

Isn't that possibility a primary reason the right was codified in the first place?

For the state militia yes, for the individual no.

I just don't see how one can toss that aside without a concern in the world for the freedom of future generations.

I don't which is why I say vote, stay involved politically in your community. Join the NRA or other like minded groups (NOT the Oath Keepers) and use the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Your vote to establish a government by of and for the people. Don't be apathetic politically and naive enough to think the supressed fully tricked out M-16 in your gun safe will do the job for you and protect freedom.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I don't which is why I say vote, stay involved politically in your community. Join the NRA or other like minded groups (NOT the Oath Keepers) and use the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Your vote to establish a government by of and for the people. Don't be apathetic politically and naive enough to think the supressed fully tricked out M-16 in your gun safe will do the job for you and protect freedom.

Is that what you think of TFL members, TG? I am neither apathetic politically nor naive, and I don't think an M-16, fully tricked out or not, is a substitute for participating in the democratic process. I am not sure how you could think that based on anything I wrote in this thread.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Is that what you think of TFL members, TG?

Some of them yeah I do. Combined with a good dose of Walter Mitty. Not all of them. If the shoe fits....

I am neither apathetic politically nor naive, and I don't think an M-16, fully tricked out or not, is a substitute for participating in the democratic process.

Didn't refer to you specifically(that was a generic you)..like I said about the shoe fitting. Nevertheless I applaud your participation in the process and I repeat if you and many more others become or remain that way you won't need a machine gun to fight off the gubmint. BTW, IMHO if we ever got to that point, as the Russians say; the living would envy the dead. It would not be the heroic Red Dawn Unintended Consequnces tripe if our country imploded. But I don't believe it will ever happen.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

It would not be the heroic Red Dawn Unintended Consequnces tripe if our country imploded.

I vision it more like a nationwide version of Manhattan from Escape From New York.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I vision it more like a nationwide version of Manhattan from Escape From New York.

The question is: Whom would be the Duke of New York?

 

[RDak]

TG: How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion).

Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".

Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?

Isn't it really that simple of a concept as far as the founding fathers were concerned? (Sure, those in power would view this "formation of well regulated militias" as rebel activity and try to quash it by force or prison time. But that's how it always is IMHO.)

ETA: It appears that you feel there is no non-voting remedy nowadays for ordinary folks to thwart real life tyranny any longer?

I say, the 2nd Amendment allows us to form well regulated militias for this purpose. By "us" I mean the unregulated militias. Whether this "formation" is successful depends on how it is received by all of America. But that's how it always is in other similar situations throughout time IMHO.

Btw, I would make you the "Duke of NY" because you seem to be an honest, decent guy. There would be others also IMHO.

(As to full auto ever becoming a commonly used weapon, that appears to be a red herring argument because the 1934 NFA Act came out reasonably soon after automatic, hand held, weapons were even available. I mean, they were only around for about 15 to 20 years by 1934 weren't they? And they were expensive I assume. [The first Thompson sub-machine gun was manufactured in 1921 and the BAR came out around the time of WWI.].)

 

[maestro pistolero]

ETA: It appears that you feel there is no remedy nowadays for ordinary folks to thwart real life tyranny any longer?

If I may summarize, TG seems to feel that only the states have the right to organize a revolution against a theoretically tyrannical government, and that common folks lack the ability, right, or even apparently the potential to organize and train.
Also, despite it's ongoing presence in the the BOR, TG believes the militia to be a 'dead letter'. "Dead and buried over a hundred years ago", never to be resurrected under any circumstances, except possibly by our trusted state governments, who are apparently not susceptible to any despotic leanings in TG's world.

How'd I do?

 

[RDak]

That's the feeling I get maestro.

I had a similar discussion with TG many months ago and I think he went away with the thought that it might be ok for the unregulated militia to organize their own well regulated militia. You know, with experienced military or LEO personnel as officers, trainers, etc.

That appeared to meet with TG's approval but we never went quite that far with our discussion.

ETA: But my main question to TG, this time, is whether regular unregulated militia folk are allowed to form well regulated militias pursuant to the 2nd Amendment? I say, on its face, yes. As long as their is a real threat of tyranny. Which is always going to be based on a subjective conclusion of "threat" if you get what I mean.

It appears, I may be wrong, that TG feels things have to be objectively obvious before the 2nd Amendment is even triggered in such a situation. That is an impossible standard to ever meet in the real world IMHO. It would be a red herring argument IMHO.

I mean, look at our own Revolution. There were many people who remained loyal to Britain. Yet the 2nd Amendment "idea" came out of that struggle IMHO. So, whether you have a tyrant, or not, is always a subjective judgment that each individual has to make IMHO.