[jmonarch]

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10259.htm


An opinion by a former AG ( I think it was Frank Kelly) halted any private transfers about 20 years ago. AG Cox has issued a new opinion which opens it back up. Not that I can afford one, anyway.

[PlayboyPenguin]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.:confused:

[jmonarch]

Why should they be any different than any other gun? If you read Miller the way I do, full auto should be more protected than shotguns.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Why should they be any different than any other gun? If you read Miller the way I do, full auto should be more protected than shotguns.
I have to wrestle with that notion that autos are only used for killing people...alot of people...with little effort. Having been on the receiving end a few times this is a hard notion to overcome. Like I said I would have to give it more thought. I guess a few well place .20 gauge shells could inflict almost as much damage as a full clip from most autos. So I am betting there are good arguements both ways.

[bogie]

I thought they were used for shooting the heck out of old cars, appliances, and reactive steel targets?

www.machinegunshoot.com

[Maxwell]

Every new years it quickly dawns on me that everyone has a full auto EXCEPT the law abiding public.
Most of who:
1) dont care to own one.
2) wouldnt bother spend the money.
3) would be happy with the option but never keep one.

Their usualy larger than normal weapons, hella loud and messy for self defense uses, and not much good in hunting. As things are their also hella-expensive to the point that few would bother.
I dont see a problem with letting normal people own military weapons, especially with all the restrictions in place that make it such a pain anyway.

[Kodiaz]

There is nothing to think about. The goal of the 2a is for we the people to have a militia. So when the govt. decides to finish the shafting that we started getting 40 years ago we have a chance of retaining a constitutional govt. You should wrestle with the notion of the ATF showing up at your house with an illegal blank warrant and a bunch of evidence ready to plant. Then you should wrestle with the notion of an army of Jack booted thugs raiding your home. And if by some divine providence you manage to withstand the first assault you should wrestle with the notion of them burning you out of your house. The 2A exists for the people to have a militia not shotguns for skeet not hunting rifles militia weapons things you can use to kill the representatives of a tyrannical govt. I'm not saying that the current govt. is unbearable but after this recent power grab it is only going to get worse. We should be able to have whatever a soldier currently carries.

An M16 an M249 a disposal anti armor weapon and a stinking stinger missile. And grenades lots of grenades.

[progunner1957]

oops - double post.

[progunner1957]

I have to wrestle with that notion that autos are only used for killing people...alot of people...with little effort.
One more example of HCI/Brady/Million Mom/UN conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or shoulder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

[PlayboyPenguin]

HCI/Brady/Million Mom conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or sholder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, sholder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.
Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.:cool:

[Kramer Krazy]

Congrats to Michigan........I wish I could afford one....and it was easier to get one. The way I view a full-auto is that it shouldn't be restricted any more than any other gun. As far as I see it, if you are a "law abiding" citizen, you aren't going to do anything illegal with it, anyway. :rolleyes:

[Kodiaz]

The Army, Marines, National Guard, Air Force and Navy are not the militia. They are all branches of the govt.'s military. They all go where they are told when they are told. The purpose of the militia is to fight the govt. not to do what it says.

Progunner you're right they aren't small arms. I will concede your point.

[carpettbaggerr]

Bazookas, LAWs, sholder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms. So what?

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

A letter of marque is issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation. This clearly shows the Framers intended that private citizens would own fully armed warships. Nice, huh?

[PlayboyPenguin]

The Army, Marines, National Guard, Air Force and Navy are not the militia. They are all branches of the govt.'s military. They all go where they are told when they are told. The purpose of the militia is to fight the govt. not to do what it says.
Hmmm...a new definition to me. But to each his own opinion. Like I said...I am undecided. Just for reference here is the dictionary definition of militia.

mi·li·tia P Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

:cool:

[Don't Tread On Me]

I believe that we should have full-autos, shoulder fired surface to air missles, and anything the military has.


When the civilian population has parity with the government in terms of the ability to project force - that is when liberty is strongest.


A common argument is that we'd live in a war zone or that people cannot be trusted. This is because people compare our modern violent society to the peaceful armed society that existed in the past. Government, its programs and its will over the people for the last 150+ years has molded our society into a violent, heartless one filled with people who would use such arms irresponsibly. A society with less government would be a society that is tough on crime. A society without socialist programs would be a more respectful, grateful, independent minded society. Had we maintained our armed status, had we not increased the police-power of the state in the 1800's, we'd live in a completely different world today shaped by individualism, free markets, and liberty.


We wouldn't be a nation where 2% of the people would actually be crazy enough to shoot down an airliner with a stinger missle because he's a drunk lowlife thug. People like this wouldn't exist for a number of reasons.

[Vern Humphrey]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.:confused:

Why not? We either trust the people, or we don't. If we don't trust them -- well, that leads to total disarmament.

[PlayboyPenguin]

I believe that we should have full-autos, shoulder fired surface to air missles, and anything the military has.


When the civilian population has parity with the government in terms of the ability to project force - that is when liberty is strongest.


A common argument is that we'd live in a war zone or that people cannot be trusted. This is because people compare our modern violent society to the peaceful armed society that existed in the past. Government, its programs and its will over the people for the last 150+ years has molded our society into a violent, heartless one filled with people who would use such arms irresponsibly. A society with less government would be a society that is tough on crime. A society without socialist programs would be a more respectful, grateful, independent minded society. Had we maintained our armed status, had we not increased the police-power of the state in the 1800's, we'd live in a completely different world today shaped by individualism, free markets, and liberty.


We wouldn't be a nation where 2% of the people would actually be crazy enough to shoot down an airliner with a stinger missle because he's a drunk lowlife thug. People like this wouldn't exist for a number of reasons.

Yikes.

[Snake Eyes]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos.

Hmmm...I read the FIRST Amendment and I do not see any mention of typewriters, high speed printing presses, keyboards or the internet.

Maybe the next time you want to post here, you'll get out your foolscap, quill and jar of ink. Then hand it off to the pony express rider and wait for Oleg to compile it with all the others, bind it and send it back to you in book form.

[Vern Humphrey]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.:cool:

You've obviously been reading anti-gun propaganda. Read the Federalist Papers and the Debates.

In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the Constitution discuss what the new, proposed constitution means. They clearly state that all citizens are allowed to be armed -- "The people are confirmed in their right to be armed."

In the Debates, the various state legislatures debate the Constitution while voting on ratification.

"All the terrible implements of the soldier." -- Tehch Cox

"Liberty's teeth" -- George Washington.

[MrTwigg]

I'm applying for a CCW here in Masaschusetts, and next to this little box are the words "License to possess a machine gun." :D Soooo tempting ! Soooo :cuss: expensive !

They can be fun ! Back in the '70's I was in the Navy (Seabees). My company got the crew served weapons. I received some cross training on an M-60, and there's nothing like a little full auto therapy to make your day !

'Nuthin wrong with private citizens owning one !

My squad got to lug a 106 recoiless around, lucky me. :rolleyes:

[jtward01]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.:confused:

I understand where you're coming from, there are lots of weapons available today that I can't think of any logical reason to own, other than just fun shooting. Is that enough of a reason to balance the potential harm one bad person can do with one of these weapons? Yeah, I guess it is. I mean, where do you draw the line? I just bought an M1 carbine. Not powerful enough for deer hunting, not accurate enough for varmit hunting, too big for concealed carry. What's it good for besides shooting people? Not much, except for blasting neat stuff at the range, and that's why I bought it. If I can have that (30 rounds fast as I can pull the trigger) why not let someone else have an M16 if they want one? It's all a matter of degrees.

If it makes you feel any better, there's only been one homocide with a legally owned machine gun since they first started regulating them in the 1930s. In that case a police officer killed his wife with his department issued Thompson submachine gun. Your understandable concern of full auto weapons being used for mass killings just hasn't been born out by history.

[PlayboyPenguin]

I understand where you're coming from, there are lots of weapons available today that I can't think of any logical reason to own, other than just fun shooting. Is that enough of a reason to balance the potential harm one bad person can do with one of these weapons? Yeah, I guess it is. I mean, where do you draw the line? I just bought an M1 carbine. Not powerful enough for deer hunting, not accurate enough for varmit hunting, too big for concealed carry. What's it good for besides shooting people? Not much, except for blasting neat stuff at the range, and that's why I bought it. If I can have that (30 rounds fast as I can pull the trigger) why not let someone else have an M16 if they want one? It's all a matter of degrees.

If it makes you feel any better, there's only been one homocide with a legally owned machine gun since they first started regulating them in the 1930s. In that case a police officer killed his wife with his department issued Thompson submachine gun. Your understandable concern of full auto weapons being used for mass killings just hasn't been born out by history.

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

[PlayboyPenguin]

You've obviously been reading anti-gun propaganda. Read the Federalist Papers and the Debates.

In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the Constitution discuss what the new, proposed constitution means. They clearly state that all citizens are allowed to be armed -- "The people are confirmed in their right to be armed."

In the Debates, the various state legislatures debate the Constitution while voting on ratification.

"All the terrible implements of the soldier." -- Tehch Cox

"Liberty's teeth" -- George Washington.

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...

[silliman89]

I've never fired a fully automatic, or had any training regarding their use. I've read other people here on THR though who talked about the evils of spray and pray, and the virtues of aimed single shots. This makes sense to me, but I don't really know.

Although I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons just for fun if they want to, I question whether they're really any more valuable in a SHTF situation. I'd like to hear from people with experience as to whether they'd rather have an auto or a semi-auto if there ever were a need to gather the militia and fight someone.

Just to be clear, I consider it a fantasy - and a dangerous fantasy at that - to think about fighting off the ATF if they come to your home to arrest you. So I'm not asking about crouching behind your wood stove and spraying a mob of feds in your front yard. I'm imagining a field engagement between two forces, such as might have occurred in 1776, 1812, or 1861.

[Vern Humphrey]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

If guns cause murders, then spoons cause fat.

[PlayboyPenguin]

If guns cause murders, then spoons cause fat.
No, over eating causes fat. Spoons are just a vehicle. People kill...guns make it much easier and sometimes more likely.

[Vern Humphrey]

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...

Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Debates?

If so, please point out where they say, "The Second Amendment only grants the States the right to keep and bear arms, not the people."

[PlayboyPenguin]

Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Debates?

If so, please point out where they say, "The Second Amendment only grants the States the right to keep and bear arms, not the people."

Hmm...once again. I do not believe I said that...I believe what I said was...
"I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making." How did you twist that into what you just said?

[Vern Humphrey]

Hmm...once again. I do not believe I said that...I believe what I said was...
"I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making." How did you twist that into what you just said?

If you want to know what the amendment means, go to the men who wrote it. They clearly intended, as Tench Cox said, "all the terrible implements of the soldier."

[PlayboyPenguin]

If you want to know what the amendment means, go to the men who wrote it. They clearly intended, as Tench Cox said, "all the terrible implements of the soldier."
That was not an answer to my question.

P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.

[Radagast]

As an IPSC RO I regularly see splits of .16 seconds between shots. That's a cyclical rate of 375 rounds per minute, not too far behind a dedicated full auto. That's aimed fire as well. I'd take a semi over a full auto any day.

As the Federal machine gun register is still closed, all that will occur is that the number in Michigan will go up and the number in the other states will drop. It's a zero sum game. The prices however will go higher as Michigan enthusiasts who can now own these firearms will bid for them. More buyers for a fixed pool will push prices even higher.

The 2nd does refer to a 'well regulated' militia. I do not see this as prohibiting the .gov from requiring all militia members (lets say it's full auto owners at this point) from shooting an annual qualification under pain of a financial penalty. It's pretty much what the Swiss do and it seems to work, full auto weapons are issued and kept at home, overseas swiss have to arrange to qualify in the country they are in or pay a fine.

As the .gov is prohibited from hindering the right to keep and bear arms, it is actually the job of the courts to decide what sort of behaviour should result in loss of that right, as a criminal sanction. The constitution is still valid, as is, regardless of changes in technology. If the changes in society or technology over the last 200 years have created a need to modify the constitution then a mechanism exists to do so. To ignore it on one issue means that it will be ignored on others, until it no longer exists as anything more than a guideline and a cause of nostalgia.

[Vern Humphrey]

That was not an answer to my question.

P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.

Quite the contrary -- anyone who could post this:

Originally Posted by PlayboyPenguin
Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.

. . . needs to go to the source.

[nwgunslinger]

One more example of HCI/Brady/Million Mom/UN conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or shoulder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.

You got it exactly right!!! IMHO, we should all have to serve a tour of duty in the armed forces and upon completion of bootcamp be issued a 1911 and an M-16, complete with Rock n Roll switch, that would be ours to keep for life.

[PlayboyPenguin]

As an IPSC RO I regularly see splits of .16 seconds between shots. That's a cyclical rate of 375 rounds per minute, not too far behind a dedicated full auto. That's aimed fire as well. I'd take a semi over a full auto any day.

As the Federal machine gun register is still closed, all that will occur is that the number in Michigan will go up and the number in the other states will drop. It's a zero sum game. The prices however will go higher as Michigan enthusiasts who can now own these firearms will bid for them. More buyers for a fixed pool will push prices even higher.

The 2nd does refer to a 'well regulated' militia. I do not see this as prohibiting the .gov from requiring all militia members (lets say it's full auto owners at this point) from shooting an annual qualification under pain of a financial penalty. It's pretty much what the Swiss do and it seems to work, full auto weapons are issued and kept at home, overseas swiss have to arrange to qualify in the country they are in or pay a fine.

As the .gov is prohibited from hindering the right to keep and bear arms, it is actually the job of the courts to decide what sort of behaviour should result in loss of that right, as a criminal sanction. The constitution is still valid, as is, regardless of changes in technology. If the changes in society or technology over the last 200 years have created a need to modify the constitution then a mechanism exists to do so. To ignore it on one issue means that it will be ignored on others, until it no longer exists as anything more than a guideline and a cause of nostalgia.

Wow...impressive insight. Doesn't using all those well thought and out properly spelled sentences make you head hurt...or is it just me.:D

[wdlsguy]

As the Federal machine gun register is still closed

We're coming up on the 20th anniversary of 18 USC Section 922(o). 922(o) must go!

[Snake Eyes]

I'm going to try one more time before I give up and just :banghead:
P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.

Using your 2nd Amendment argument, PP, please read the following original text:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And explain how this "very clearly worded and written in great detail" amendment prohibits the government from tapping your telephone line at the utility pole (not a "person", "house", "paper" or "effect") without a warrant. (You DO believe the government needs a warrant to tap your phone, don't you?)

Now draw the simple parallel from the 4th to the 2nd. Are we learning yet?

[jtward01]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

Yes, but those are areas of extreme conflict between different groups of the citizenry. If they didn't have access to full auto firearms they would have killed just as many with semi-auto weapons.

The change in Michigan simply allows their citizens to purchase existing full auto weapons under current federal regulations. It doesn't legalize any weapons that aren't already legal, it simply makes it possible for that state's residents to own the same types of firearms that the residents of most of the other states may own.

There are thousands of legally owned full auto weapons already in civilian hands, yet only one has ever been used to kill another person. The cost alone ($12,000 to $15,000 for an M-16) will prohibit all but the most avid collectors from owning one.

[jtward01]

I'm going to try one more time before I give up and just :banghead:


Using your 2nd Amendment argument, PP, please read the following original text:

And explain how this "very clearly worded and written in great detail" amendment prohibits the government from tapping your telephone line at the utility pole (not a "person", "house", "paper" or "effect") without a warrant. (You DO believe the government needs a warrant to tap your phone, don't you?)

Now draw the simple parallel from the 4th to the 2nd. Are we learning yet?


Wouldn't the telephone be an "effect" since effect can simply mean possessions? Seems to me this would include telephone, computer and pretty much everything else you might own.

[answerguy]

Why should they be any different than any other gun? If you read Miller the way I do, full auto should be more protected than shotguns.

Somebody didn't take their blissninny pill today, did they? Repeat after me; citizens shouldn't own military type guns because they are too well made and dangerous. People shouldn't own inexpensive guns because they are too cheaply made and dangerous.

[owen]

Uh, Penguin,

The Federalist Papers were essays written by the writers of the Constitution, explaining why it written the way it was. They were published in newspapers to help the ratification process along. There are also the Anti-Federalist Papers.

They explain a great deal about the intended purpose of the 2A.

Writing without bias is a futile exercise.

[Snake Eyes]

Wouldn't the telephone be an "effect"
The telephone itself might fall into the catagory of an "effect", but what I said was:
tapping your telephone line at the utility pole
A private citizen neither owns, rents, has access or any claim to the utility pole or the lines running on it. It is simply a carrier of electrical surges that may or may not get re-assembled in their disembodied voice.

Of course, the founding fathers didn't have this issue to consider, so it must not be governed by the amendment. Just like machine guns, right??

:barf: :banghead:

[Sleeping Dog]

Why not? We either trust the people, or we don't. If we don't trust them -- well, that leads to total disarmament.
Vern, it's interesting that you support rights to own automatic weapons, even thought you wanted the troops in your command to set the selector to semi-only.

So it's our right to own full auto, even if it's sort of pointless, wasteful, and generally not a good idea. I like that.

My fear (or expectation) is that some moron in my neighborhood with more dollars than sense will get one of these. And he'll haul it out in his driveway on Dec 31, and at the stroke of midnight .... light up the neighborhood. This Detroit suburb sounds like a war zone anyway on New Years eve. Full auto and mass quantities of beer - wow.

Hmmm... if I only link 5 rounds together, can I take a M60 deer-hunting? :)

Regards.

[Stevie-Ray]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same. Read my sig. I can't say it any better than that.



Now, I wish I still had a line on that M-16 I could have had about 14 years ago.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, it's interesting that you support rights to own automatic weapons, even thought you wanted the troops in your command to set the selector to semi-only.

So it's our right to own full auto, even if it's sort of pointless, wasteful, and generally not a good idea. I like that.

My fear (or expectation) is that some moron in my neighborhood with more dollars than sense will get one of these. And he'll haul it out in his driveway on Dec 31, and at the stroke of midnight .... light up the neighborhood. This Detroit suburb sounds like a war zone anyway on New Years eve. Full auto and mass quantities of beer - wow.

Hmmm... if I only link 5 rounds together, can I take a M60 deer-hunting? :)

Regards.

There's method in my madness -- Detroit NEEDS a little chloriine in the gene pool. :-)

But, yes -- I think you have a right to have whatever weapon you wish.

[Maxwell]

My fear (or expectation) is that some moron in my neighborhood with more dollars than sense will get one of these. And he'll haul it out in his driveway on Dec 31, and at the stroke of midnight .... light up the neighborhood.


Sorry, I just had to post this :D

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=35207&stc=1&d=1139355308

The 2nd amendment included cannons, the original crew served weapon, as well as warships and anything else the civilian could afford.
Privateering was a fairly effective tactic back then and we still use mercinaries today (call it what you will). More than a few good battles were fought with privately owned arms. Everything from large cannon to small handpistols.

Even when things were at their worst, how many robberies and murders had been carried out with cannons or full-auto weapons? Not enough to warrent the laws that came to control them.

I would dare to say the vast majority of the full-autos in this country are already in the wrong hands.
Whats at question here is weather you (a citizen in good standing with all your papers inorder) have the right to own what soldiers, cops, movie studios, private security and criminals already do.

Personaly I believe in full freedom with no limits. I believe that other factors can be brought into play for far better control than a law can.
Mainly by dealing with the reasons people want to kill other people, and why they would feel the need to spend $5k on a machine pistol.

Focus the laws and money on Poverty, drugs, mental illness, and racism. You'll do alot more without stomping on some rednecks freedom to plink old wrecks with a submachine gun.

[Vern Humphrey]

If people are being shot in the streets by hoodlums with machineguns, then I want a machinegun (preferrably an M1917 watercooled, mounted on a tripod, as a machinegun should be.)

[chas_martel]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.:cool:

Why do you even post here?

Do your realize what "well regulated" even means? I am betting not.

[chas_martel]

Hmmm...a new definition to me. But to each his own opinion. Like I said...I am undecided. Just for reference here is the dictionary definition of militia.

mi·li·tia P Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

:cool:

Why use a dictionary, why not just use the definition that matters, the
one spelled out in US Code.

Also, your posted definition kinda goes against your argument. IMO

[chas_martel]

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...

But wait just a minute. You just did that above when you said you got
a def from a dictionary. Dictionaries are often politically motivated, plus
the common usage of words change with time - as with "regulated".

I think your are just stiring the pot. No one is that........oh wait
a minute.......highroad....................

[Kodiaz]

Methinks the penguin lives under a bridge. Trolls are also known to live under bridges.

[Parruthead]

OMG now they can have fully Automatic Weapons too. Lucky Bastards.... I only wish we here in wisconsin had ccw like michigan did. Guess its time to move...

[PlayboyPenguin]

But wait just a minute. You just did that above when you said you got
a def from a dictionary. Dictionaries are often politically motivated, plus
the common usage of words change with time - as with "regulated".

I think your are just stiring the pot. No one is that........oh wait
a minute.......highroad....................

Oh please..you are going to charge the websters standard english dictionary with being politically charged since it's definitions do not agree with your opinions...get real. Are you serious?

[PlayboyPenguin]

OMG now they can have fully Automatic Weapons too. Lucky Bastards.... I only wish we here in wisconsin had ccw like michigan did. Guess its time to move...

You have no availability of CCW in Wisconsin? That sucks...i think that any competent adult that can meet simple requirements should be able to get a CCW. I do have some issues about open carry...mainly because it is just more trouble than it is worth and alot of business will deny entry.

[Nightfall]

That was not an answer to my question.

P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.They did write it quite clearly. Some reading for you (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html).

[Remington788]

You have no availability of CCW in Wisconsin? That sucks...i think that any competent adult that can meet simple requirements should be able to get a CCW

***. In another thread you said this.

I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate for any joe smoe to be able to walk around with a loaded and deadly weapon.

So are you or are you not for CCW?

Methinks the penguin lives under a bridge. Trolls are also known to live under bridges.

I agree.

[Sleeping Dog]

Do your realize what "well regulated" even means? I am betting not.
Uh, does it have something to do with bran muffins? :p

Regards.

[ctdonath]

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.'sqeze me? "Not small arms"? Sorry, I don't see any such qualifying aspect to the 2nd Amendment - a very clear statement written by men who owned (and/or borrowed privately owned) field artillery and battleships, and also wrote the "letters of marque" clause based on the presumption of privately owned very heavy weapons.

The "small arms only" premise is preposterous. The Founding Fathers were mere citizens who took on the #1 world superpower of the time; it's absurd to think that they intended similar citizens have anything less than full access to the lightest and heaviest weapons available at the time, for use against the most powerful tyrrany citizens could face.

Yes, I understand the concern about one nut killing lots of people. Face it: this discussion board is entirely focused on GUNS - machines which, when used skillfully, can kill lots of people very fast (even bolt- and break-actions); recall that one of the first modern school shooting incidents involved flushing out a school via fire alarm and the kid/perp picking off evacuees with a bolt-action hunting rifle.

Funny, a periodic question is "what good is a handgun against an army?", alternated with the declaration "the 2nd Amendment only applies to small arms!" Strangely, such commentators suffer cognitive dissonance with the obvious trump response: "yes, the Founding Fathers fully intended citizens have the protected right of obtaining ANY weapon - precisely because they may have to take on an oppressive government."

[Ryder]

Didn't some Michiganders already legally own them through the corporation exclusion? If this new "opinion" still requires a sheriff's signature (and I'll bet it does) not much has changed.

Preventing everyone from obtaining automatic firearms isn't going to stop anyone from killing megatudes of people if that's what they want to do. Arson is known to rack up huge body counts in a hurry.

[carebear]

Oh please..you are going to charge the websters standard english dictionary with being politically charged since it's definitions do not agree with your opinions...get real. Are you serious?

Penguin, I agree you have to look at the definitions, however you have to look at the definitions in use at the time the Amendment was written in order to get an accurate read. That's where the Fed/anti-Fed papers come in, they define exactly what the Founders meant the words to mean, not what Mirriam-Webster has as common usage today.

On that, ironically, honest, competent, legal authorities on both sides of the gun control issue agree. The really smart anti-gun rights legal minds realize the 2nd has to be repealed in order to enact Constitutional gun control. It's the Schumer's, Brady's and lesser lights who try to say it doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written.

Original intent is the key.

[PlayboyPenguin]

So are you or are you not for CCW? e.

I have always said i am for CCW permits. i do not think that just everyone should be allowed to carry. They should have to (as I have said 4 times now in different threads) be able to pass a background check and get through the required gun safety course. that would exclude just anyone from carrying. I have a CCW permit in two states and think ever state should have them available...but their should be safeguards. No case by case crap either...that is too discretionary (current powersthat be could just decide to not allow people they consider a threat to possess arms). There should just be a set criteria...like over 21, no criminal record (felony), no history of mental illness, and a verifiable address.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Penguin, I agree you have to look at the definitions, however you have to look at the definitions in use at the time the Amendment was written in order to get an accurate read. That's where the Fed/anti-Fed papers come in, they define exactly what the Founders meant the words to mean, not what Mirriam-Webster has as common usage today.

On that, ironically, honest, competent, legal authorities on both sides of the gun control issue agree. The really smart anti-gun rights legal minds realize the 2nd has to be repealed in order to enact Constitutional gun control. It's the Schumer's, Brady's and lesser lights who try to say it doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written.

Original intent is the key.

FYI...I did some looking into the definition of Militia in the dictionary...the definition has been consistant since early publicatons of Websters back 'til 1806....the definition they used was copied word for word from an european dictionary dating back to 1655. before the founding father wrote the constitution.

[Hawkmoon]

One more example of HCI/Brady/Million Mom/UN conditioning.

The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.

Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or shoulder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.

Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.
I disagree only in detail.

The 2nd Amendment does not make any mention of "small" as a qualifier to "arms." I am supposed to be guaranteed the right to keep and bear "arms." If I wish to bear a bazooka, an RPG, etc., as far as I am concerned that, too, is protected under the 2nd Amendment.

[PlayboyPenguin]

They did write it quite clearly. Some reading for you (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html).

I read the paper you linked. pretty good reading. i did notice that they stressed that a person must be acceptable to military duty to be in a militia (and therefore be armed). The military does NOT accept the mentally ill, the mentally unfit, felons, children, etc...so that would rule out some people right there. It also staes that it is under the control of the union and may be regulated by such union (short of disarmament)...which like in the military would include what you can do on duty versus what you can do when not in service. I had a person on this very board state that the mitiltia was there to fight AGAINST the government and alot of people supported his statement. I did find it a bit disconcerting that in some instances they used older definitions and in some they used more recent when those definitions better suited their viewpoint.

[Hawkmoon]

Hmm...once again. I do not believe I said that...I believe what I said was...
"I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making." How did you twist that into what you just said?
If you have done as you say ... read the amendment itself, and the definitions of the terms (as used at the time the document was written) ... where in blue bloody blazes do you come with the notion that automatic weapons aren't included? They hadn't been invented at the time, Mate. The intent of the framers was to NOT have standing armies, and to have "the People" -- us citizen type folks -- hold the arms, and thus to maintain the government subservient to the will of "the People."

If you still wish to believe that the Army (et al) are the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, you should then proceed to reading the Militia Act in the U.S. Code ... where it is written as a matter of Federal law that the militia very definitely is NOT the Army, Airforce, Navy and Marine Corps. Don't take my word for it -- go read it for yourself.

[carebear]

FYI...I did some looking into the definition of Militia in the dictionary...the definition has been consistant since early publicatons of Websters back 'til 1806....the definition they used was copied word for word from an european dictionary dating back to 1655. before the founding father wrote the constitution.

It isn't the definition of "militia" I was referring to. The one you posted is paralleled in the US Code definition of the "unorganized militia".

I was referring to the definitions of "well-regulated" (which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control) and "arms".

[Trip20]

You've obviously been reading anti-gun propaganda. Read the Federalist Papers and the Debates.

In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the Constitution discuss what the new, proposed constitution means. They clearly state that all citizens are allowed to be armed -- "The people are confirmed in their right to be armed."

I had to laugh when Vern suggesting PlayboyPenguin read the Federalist Papers and the Debates... then PlayboyPenguin suggested those were politically biased publications:

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.

[Snake Eyes]

The military does NOT accept the mentally ill, the mentally unfit, felons, children,

You really ought to read "1776" by David McCollough (won the Pulitzer Prize). George Washington's "army" (really our first national militia) accepted ALL of those, no questions asked.

Children and felons, particularly, are cannon fodder in militias world wide.

[PlayboyPenguin]

It isn't the definition of "militia" I was referring to. The one you posted is paralleled in the US Code definition of the "unorganized militia".
I was referring to the definitions of "well-regulated" (which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control) and "arms".
Oh, okay...in that case I point you towards the link that Nightfall linked above. It very clearly shows the definition that the founding fathers set forth for what "regulated" means and who controlled the militias (the union). Read it and get back to me.:cool:

[PlayboyPenguin]

If you have done as you say ... read the amendment itself, and the definitions of the terms (as used at the time the document was written) ... where in blue bloody blazes do you come with the notion that automatic weapons aren't included? They hadn't been invented at the time, Mate. The intent of the framers was to NOT have standing armies, and to have "the People" -- us citizen type folks -- hold the arms, and thus to maintain the government subservient to the will of "the People."

If you still wish to believe that the Army (et al) are the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, you should then proceed to reading the Militia Act in the U.S. Code ... where it is written as a matter of Federal law that the militia very definitely is NOT the Army, Airforce, Navy and Marine Corps. Don't take my word for it -- go read it for yourself. Man...are some people blind. I never said autos were not covered. I just said I was unsure how I personally felt about autos. i said I would love to own one but was not sure they are safe and not sure i can shake the bad memories I associate with them READ people..READ...read before you comment. And I do believe I just said above that the militia is governed by the union. i did not say it was the army. But the papers that you are so fond of do state that the members of the militia have to be acceptable to military service. I assume they mean the standards of the late 1700's...the same basic standards we use today.

[Justin]

Don't like full auto?

Don't own one.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[carebear]

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

Sounds like which refers to training and competence, not any sort of gov. control to me.

The non-Federally regulated (controlled by laws) individual possession of arms is necessary so that the unorganized militia (per US Code and traditional definition) has the means when called into National Service to be put in good order.

The "regulation" refers to the training and discipline of the militia, not any sort of Federal control of the keeping and bearing of arms.

Your point was?

[taliv]

i think a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd would apply to weapons common to the militia. that would include, today, for example, full autos, RPGs, grenades, stinger-type missles/rocket launchers, etc.

it would not include ICBM, nukes, biologicals, etc.


in my opinion, if the US agrees to a treaty that bans chemical warfare, then the militia would be prohibited from possessing them (including mortar and artillery with chemical payloads.)

while this may be somewhat off topic,
if the US agrees to a treaty (hypothetically) that banned hollow-pointed rifle/pistol ammo, then I would say the militia is banned from using them against enemies (foreign or domestic) but that people in general shouldn't be banned from possessing them, as they obviously have dual purpose (hunting, sporting, etc)

[David W. Gay]

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side.
OK, I know this sounds impolite, but I laughed when I read that statement. It is quite absurd, really. The U.S. Constitution is, by it's very nature, a politically biased publication.

I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
Are you saying that if you read what someone else has written on a topic, that you are no longer capable of making up your own mind on the subject?

Every legal descision is politally biased, if even only a little. And if the above is true (not liking to read other's political writtings), then why bother engaging in any discussion on this board? It is nothing BUT politically biased discourse.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Every legal descision is politally biased, if even only a little. And if the above is true (not liking to read other's political writtings), then why bother engaging in any discussion on this board? It is nothing BUT politically biased discourse.

I would hate to think that people as professional and accomplished as supreme court justices let politics interfer with their job...as far as engaging in debate...that is the best way to make your point and sometimes to be enlightened with information that may change your own opinion.:cool:

[50caliber123]

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It is the last sentence of the second amendment in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights "...The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the part that people should focus on, not the "well regulated militia".

[PlayboyPenguin]

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It is the last sentence of the second amendment in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights "...The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is the part that people should focus on, not the "well regulated militia".
Never focus on anything with "..." in front of or behind it. It means something has been left out and therefore the quote is not likely to be in proper context. Focus on "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Deal with the idea in it's entirety.

[UberPhLuBB]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

If that's the way you think then aren't you afraid that the government would be the only ones capable of "spraying and praying" over hundreds of citizens crowded together? That frightens me infinitely more than my fellow gun owners owning full-auto.

You must meet force with force, my friend. A few scattered shooters with hunting rifles an army does not make. By this logic, we should be allowed to purchase tanks and state of the art fighter jets as well, instead of being prevented from doing that by exclusive military contracts and FAA regulations.

It's scary to think about, even if it is very unlikely to happen. We NEED everything they have. Not want, NEED. Soldiers are people too, and some of them would no doubt defect, pushed by their morals. But as an Army grunt, you should know better than most the rigid control structure soldiers are subject to. Quitting and turning just aren't an option to most soldiers and they WILL fight us if told to, bringing their jets, helicopters, tanks and plenty of full-auto weapons to bear on us. And why not? What's to stop them? Certainly not us, with our $600 hunting rifles and pistols.

I'm no tinfoil wearing SHTFer, I rarely talk about this stuff. But think logically.

Sorry to get off topic folks.

[David W. Gay]

I would hate to think that people as professional and accomplished as supreme court justices let politics interfer with their job...
I have to appologize, but that made me laugh, too. ;)

Anyway, it may be subtle, but EVERYONE has a political bent, and will take actions, and make decisions, that are as in line with such bents as possible. In other words, SC judges may shy away from the political limelight, but their decisions are still politically tainted, one way or the other.

Now me, on the other hand - I'm *completely* unbiased.... :D

as far as engaging in debate...that is the best way to make your point and sometimes to be enlightened with information that may change your own opinion.
I have to tell ya', you're cracking me up! It takes me AT LEAST ten years to change my opinion (and I'll still never admit it). And most people around here? - Twice that, if ever. :D

Now, back to my original point, your statement above directly contradicts your original statement, the one I quoted earlier, about forming your own opinion without reading any political publications. This board is nothing but a collection of (rather short) political publications. :)

Carry on!

[stevelyn]

I have to wrestle with that notion that autos are only used for killing people...alot of people...with little effort. Having been on the receiving end a few times this is a hard notion to overcome. Like I said I would have to give it more thought. I guess a few well place .20 gauge shells could inflict almost as much damage as a full clip from most autos. So I am betting there are good arguements both ways.

Hmmmm..........How hard do you wrestle with the notion that all those Springfield '03s, M-1 Garands, Enfields and Mausers were only used for killing people at one time or another, not to mention a bunch of those Trapdoor Springfields that were used to massacre Indian women and children?:rolleyes: Killing with those seem to be just as bad since all parties are equally dead.

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have to appologize, but that made me laugh, too. ;)

Anyway, it may be subtle, but EVERYONE has a political bent, and will take actions, and make decisions, that are as in line with such bents as possible. In other words, SC judges may shy away from the political limelight, but their decisions are still politically tainted, one way or the other.

Now me, on the other hand - I'm *completely* unbiased.... :D


I have to tell ya', you're cracking me up! It takes me AT LEAST ten years to change my opinion (and I'll still never admit it). And most people around here? - Twice that, if ever. :D

Now, back to my original point, your statement above directly contradicts your original statement, the one I quoted earlier, about forming your own opinion without reading any political publications. This board is nothing but a collection of (rather short) political publications. :)

Carry on!

Wrong...just plain wrong. you couldn't be more wrong.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Hmmmm..........How hard do you wrestle with the notion that all those Springfield '03s, M-1 Garands, Enfields and Mausers were only used for killing people at one time or another, not to mention a bunch of those Trapdoor Springfields that were used to massacre Indian women and children?:rolleyes: Killing with those seem to be just as bad since all parties are equally dead.
Sorry, I refuse to use one evil as justification for another...that is a very dark place to take yourself and not the kind of thinking I fought to protect.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Penguin, I agree you have to look at the definitions, however you have to look at the definitions in use at the time the Amendment was written in order to get an accurate read. That's where the Fed/anti-Fed papers come in, they define exactly what the Founders meant the words to mean, not what Mirriam-Webster has as common usage today.

On that, ironically, honest, competent, legal authorities on both sides of the gun control issue agree. The really smart anti-gun rights legal minds realize the 2nd has to be repealed in order to enact Constitutional gun control. It's the Schumer's, Brady's and lesser lights who try to say it doesn't mean now what it meant when it was written.

Original intent is the key. I really did not have anything to add here... I just found it funny that someone on a gun board is called "Carebear" I just had to sit down and sketch this...forgive the crudeness of the drawing...since I am on the job site all I had was a sharpy marker and the back of some old wallpaper to draw on...I then took a pic with my cell cam and uploaded it to my portable to color it. :)

[David W. Gay]

Wrong...just plain wrong. you couldn't be more wrong.
What, precisely, is wrong?


PS: See ya'll tomorrow!

[PlayboyPenguin]

What, precisely, is wrong?
Oh...sorry. you are wrong in saying that i contradicted myself. i do form my own opinions...if i choose to engage in debate and gather info I did not previously have that is not a contradiction. if I try to read the legal viewpoint as officially recorded, that does not contradict my statement. I will not read opinions written by political figures that do not result in judgement. And i do not listen to paid mouthpieces for the far right or the far left. i turn off air america in disgust about as often as i do rush or O'Rielly

[Meplat]

I am not sure of my stance on full autos for the general public (myself included) but I do know I would probable like to own one...maybe take it to an outdoor range occasionally.:confused:

Dunno why the ambiguity about ownership of full auto weapons.

No. 1: In the only example that I can think of where a LEGALLY owned full auto was used in the commission of a crime, it was used by a police officer to murder his wife.

No. 2: The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd with the idea that it might someday become necessary to defend against enemies both foreign AND/OR domestic. In order (should such a drastic thing ever come to pass) to be armed in a manner that would allow you to do that, don't you think it would be necessary to be at armed with tools equal to those possessed who might attack you?

[stevelyn]

Sorry, I refuse to use one evil as justification for another...that is a very dark place to take yourself and not the kind of thinking I fought to protect.

I'm not implying one evil as justfication for another. As I see it there is really no difference. The technology of the machinery changed not the evil intent to do harm to others. The guns are inanimate objects no more, no less.

Your sentiments are misplaced in my opinion. It's not the instrument. It's the person wielding them that can be evil.
Personally, I'd rather face some undisciplined nut with a full-auto than I would a skilled and disciplined one with a semi-auto or repeater.

However, as one poster has already pointed out full-auto guns have never been a problem in this country. The "problem" was govt prohibition of alcohol creating the gangs.........you just like the govt prohibition of some drugs creating the gangs of today.

And contrary to the Brady trash propaganda .50 caliber rifles aren't either.

[Meplat]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.:cool:

You are placing the emphasis on a subordinate clause...an unthinkable act of butchery of the English language. The 2nd, in MAIN does indeed state the right of the INDIVIDUAL to "casually" carry a weapon. "People". Go see how many times it is used in the BOR. Tell me ONE other instance where the word "People" meant some collective body. NOT ONCE. ..."keep and bear arms..." kinda hard to bear something you can't...ummm...carry (bear)....now ain't it?

[Meplat]

All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.

What he said was legally owned full autos since regulation. The use of English really is a subtle thing. One has to pay close attention.

There have been plenty of illegally owned fully automatic weapons used in crimes, and even if all firearms were to be taken from the legal gun owners in this country, then there would still be plenty. If a drug ring can smuggle TONS of drugs into this country, then a few machine guns thrown in the shipment wouldn't be too hard to carry off.

[Meplat]

Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...

Mr. Humphreys asked you to read the Federalist Papers. Am I to take it that you consider the Federalist Papers a "politically biased publication"??????
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Meplat]

I've never fired a fully automatic, or had any training regarding their use.

I've fired MP5's, Thompson's and M16's. And no, they are not effective when used in the spray and pray mode for other than close quarters combat. That is the reason for the last modifications to the M16. It's selector switch now goes "Safe", "Semi" and "Three Round Burst". The average soldier in a firefight, when equipped with a full auto weapon, will fire hundreds of rounds for each casualty inflicted. That said, however, the usage of full auto in sweeping a hostile room, or in CQC is not to be denied.

I've read other people here on THR though who talked about the evils of spray and pray, and the virtues of aimed single shots. This makes sense to me, but I don't really know.

In most cases, that is entirely correct.

Although I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons just for fun if they want to, I question whether they're really any more valuable in a SHTF situation.

They do have their uses, yes. Like any other tool. That's the main reason for selective fire weapons. To be able to select how to best use the tool for the proper circumstance.

I'd like to hear from people with experience as to whether they'd rather have an auto or a semi-auto if there ever were a need to gather the militia and fight someone.

Personally, I'd rather have a full auto sub gun along with a full scale battle rifle. Right tools again.

Just to be clear, I consider it a fantasy - and a dangerous fantasy at that - to think about fighting off the ATF if they come to your home to arrest you.

Actually, a good portion of the Colonists thought that way as well about the British.

So I'm not asking about crouching behind your wood stove and spraying a mob of feds in your front yard. I'm imagining a field engagement between two forces, such as might have occurred in 1776, 1812, or 1861.

Without doubt, marksmanship and the motivation to win play more of a role when both sides are similarly equipped. Andrew Jackson's exploits with a rag tag bunch of 4,000 rednecks who could shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 100 paces is a good indicator of that. Had the British had the ability to focus heavy automatic weapons fire on the marksmen, though, their 12,000 member force would most assuredly have had an even larger advantage, with most probably an entirely different outcome. I think the same could be said about ANY of the other battles you mentioned. That's the reason we don't go to war with muzzle loaders as issued weapons today. And the reason if your government SHOULD ever come after you, they won't do it with Brown Besses.

And, as Dame Katrina taught us, if the military or local authorities can't get to you in time to help, then you damn well better be armed at least as well as your antagonists.

[Meplat]

No, over eating causes fat. Spoons are just a vehicle. People kill...guns make it much easier and sometimes more likely.

Mucho wrongo. Study some of the ancient battles, before firearms were invented or in common usage. The rate of killing was horrendous when two armies met on the plain of battle. Firearms have actually made warfare MORE humane.

And from the first recorded murder on, something as simple as picking up a rock has always been fairly easy, even for a weak person to do.

More likely? I don't think so. The value a society places on human life is what makes murder more or less likely. When life is cheap, murder is rampant. When it is valued, it is rare. It doesn't matter what weapons are available. It just isn't THAT hard to run someone through with a sharpened piece of metal or to club them over the head, unless they are armed equally or even superior to you. The Swiss are REQUIRED to keep REAL assault weapons in their homes, and are issued ammuniton annually, and expected to practice with it. What are their murder rates like?

[PlayboyPenguin]

Mucho wrongo. Study some of the ancient battles, before firearms were invented or in common usage. The rate of killing was horrendous when two armies met on the plain of battle. Firearms have actually made warfare MORE humane.

And from the first recorded murder on, something as simple as picking up a rock has always been fairly easy, even for a weak person to do.

More likely? I don't think so. The value a society places on human life is what makes murder more or less likely. When life is cheap, murder is rampant. When it is valued, it is rare. It doesn't matter what weapons are available. It just isn't THAT hard to run someone through with a sharpened piece of metal or to club them over the head, unless they are armed equally or even superior to you. The Swiss are REQUIRED to keep REAL assault weapons in their homes, and are issued ammuniton annually, and expected to practice with it. What are their murder rates like?

Where do you get this info from. I have been there and I never saw one family with auto weapons in their homes nor heard mention of it. In fact when we were in state there we were given instruction that the local gun laws were actually quite strict. Have they changed? is this something that used to be true but is no longer? just curious.. As for picking up rocks being equivelant to using a gun you need to step back and rethink that...if someone had just had a rock I would not have seen my friend SSG A. Michell shot in the back from a hundred yards out while handing out candy to local children...if someone had only had a blade I would not have been present when 3 men lost their lives to automatic weapons fire from a nearby roof top in the very spot that a friend of mine and I had been standing mere seconds earlier, etc.

[Meplat]

Wrong...just plain wrong. you couldn't be more wrong.

BRAVO! Good strong points, excellent parrying, and a thrust to the core.

Methinks you MUST be a troll.

[PlayboyPenguin]

BRAVO! Good strong points, excellent parrying, and a thrust to the core.

Methinks you MUST be a troll.
I hit the post too soon...if you read on you will see the next post carries the continuation...Some people are so quick to jump on things before seeing what is really happening or being said.

[PlayboyPenguin]

BRAVO! Good strong points, excellent parrying, and a thrust to the core.

Methinks you MUST be a troll.
I hit the post too soon...if you read on you will see the next post carries the continuation...Some people are so quick to jump on things before seeing what is really happening or being said.

[PlayboyPenguin]

2

[Meplat]

Where do you get this info from.

Here's one good source - although if you've done much reading on the Swiss system of miltia based service, you really wouldn't need it. http://www.constitution.org/mil/swiss_report.htm

I have been there and I never saw one family with auto weapons in their homes nor heard mention of it.

Had you seen me walking around town yesterday, you would not have seen the SIG P-226 I was carrying. Does not change the fact that it was still there.

In fact when we were in state there we were given instruction that the local gun laws were actually quite strict. Have they changed?

Nope. One of the major sports for the Swiss is rifle and pistol shooting events. They have over three thousand public ranges. How the hell did you spend any time in a country that size and NOT know that?

As for picking up rocks being equivelant to using a gun you need to step back and rethink that...if someone had just had a rock I would not have seen my friend SSG A. Michell shot in the back from a hundred yards out while handing out candy to local children...
As much as I hate to hear about your friend (and I DO hate to hear about him), quite frankly anyone with any amount of skill at all with a patched round ball and 100 grains of ffg black powder could have done the same thing.

if someone had only had a blade I would not have been present when 3 men lost their lives to automatic weapons fire from a nearby roof top in the very spot that a friend of mine and I had been standing mere seconds earlier, etc.

Once again, tragic. No sarcasm meant. It IS tragic. However, one loony with a gallon of gasoline could have gotten more people. Gasoline control, anyone? Were you aware that the worst mass murder episode in US history involved some dillweed pissed at his girlfriend, a gallon of gasoline, and a disco? Could a Malotov Cocktail hurled from the same rooftop possibly have taken out the three men you speak of? Could three well aimed shots from a semi-automatic weapon have achieved the same ends? Could some one with a burning desire and a quick hand with a blade not have walked up, taken them unawares and still struck them dead? Possibly not as likely, but it could be done. There HAS been more than one recorded case of multiple deaths by edged weapons, you know.

Edited 2-08-06 12:19 PM

Sorry. SECOND most deady mass murder took place by the use of gasoline. It only killed 90 someodd peolple. The largest mass murder was committed by a whacko with a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil. Apologies for the mistake.

[Meplat]

I hit the post too soon...if you read on you will see the next post carries the continuation...Some people are so quick to jump on things before seeing what is really happening or being said.


Coffee is good. Too much coffee is not so good. You're jittering a bit there.

[UberPhLuBB]

If that's the way you think then aren't you afraid that the government would be the only ones capable of "spraying and praying" over hundreds of citizens crowded together? That frightens me infinitely more than my fellow gun owners owning full-auto.

You must meet force with force, my friend. A few scattered shooters with hunting rifles an army does not make. By this logic, we should be allowed to purchase tanks and state of the art fighter jets as well, instead of being prevented from doing that by exclusive military contracts and FAA regulations.

It's scary to think about, even if it is very unlikely to happen. We NEED everything they have. Not want, NEED. Soldiers are people too, and some of them would no doubt defect, pushed by their morals. But as an Army grunt, you should know better than most the rigid control structure soldiers are subject to. Quitting and turning just aren't an option to most soldiers and they WILL fight us if told to, bringing their jets, helicopters, tanks and plenty of full-auto weapons to bear on us. And why not? What's to stop them? Certainly not us, with our $600 hunting rifles and pistols.

I'm no tinfoil wearing SHTFer, I rarely talk about this stuff. But think logically.

Sorry to get off topic folks.


Any comment, Penguin, or were you going to ignore this one?

This is the High Road, so I won't resort to personal insults (especially since none were directed at me), but perhaps this isn't the forum for you.

[Meplat]

Sorry, I refuse to use one evil as justification for another...that is a very dark place to take yourself and not the kind of thinking I fought to protect.

Are we on the same planet? The topic of the thread is Michigan's decision to allow law abiding people with the means and the desire to own fully automatic weapons to do so. Your postulation was that you were uncertain as to whether this was a good idea because of the potential for destructive misuse, while maintaining that somehow other arms were acceptable to you. All that was pointed out was the fact that the use of military style arms before the invention and widespread usage of fully automatic weapons were fully capable of killing quite effectively. The same military style arms that you now consider "acceptable".

[Matthew748]

Well, I am glad for Michigan. Indiana allows machine guns and I have never seen the infamous tidal wave of blood washing down the streets that some people here seem to be afraid of. To see that I guess I would have to go northwest to Chicago. Funny that machine guns and CCW permits are verboten there.

I really do not see what the big deal is. Legally registered machine guns are so darn expensive that few people can afford them. I like guns, but have never once thought about owning a full auto due to the steep price.

[silliman89]

Meplat,

Thanks for post #90. I appreciate the thoughtful response.

[David W. Gay]

Oh...sorry. you are wrong in saying that i contradicted myself. i do form my own opinions.
I understand that, and never meant to imply that you didn't. Just the opposite, actually. I belive you, I, and most people, are capable of forming our own opinions, no matter what we read. Regardless of the slant, political or otherwise, of what's being read.

And yes, even those vaunted "legal decisions" of the USSC (or of any court) have a political side to them. That is why there is always such a debate when a SC justice is being nomitated. Conservatives want politically conservative judges. Liberals want politically liberal judges. Those wants are legitimately based on the fact that the politically debated and chosen justice will go on to make "politically unbiased", "legal" decisions.

As far as me being wrong, no I'm not - you're wrong! :evil:

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, there is only opinion"

Now, just to stay a little on topic - Machine guns are COOL. :D

Carry on!

[Vern Humphrey]

I had a person on this very board state that the mitiltia was there to fight AGAINST the government and alot of people supported his statement. I did find it a bit disconcerting that in some instances they used older definitions and in some they used more recent when those definitions better suited their viewpoint.

READ the Federalist Papers!!

If you read them, you would know that one of the key reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government (which is not surprising -- only 4 years before the Convention, the people HAD resisted and defeated a tyrannical government.)

The people are the guarentors of their own liberty.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Are we on the same planet? The topic of the thread is Michigan's decision to allow law abiding people with the means and the desire to own fully automatic weapons to do so. Your postulation was that you were uncertain as to whether this was a good idea because of the potential for destructive misuse, while maintaining that somehow other arms were acceptable to you. All that was pointed out was the fact that the use of military style arms before the invention and widespread usage of fully automatic weapons were fully capable of killing quite effectively. The same military style arms that you now consider "acceptable".

I think you are missing the point...along with a lot of other frothing at the mouth attack dogs (not impying you are one but there are some on here). I poll was done just yesterday on this very board and (at the time) 63% on this board voted for gun control and had issue with people ( a full third of respondants) that said "everyone" should be allowed to purchase regardless of background, criminal history, age, or lack of training. What do think those numbers would be if the general public was polled...and the reason (in my opinion) is we have way to many FAR right people in the gun movement who will thump their breasts and quote the 2nd amendment (even though they do not truely understand it any better than the next guy) and not move from their "ALL OR NOTHING"..."pry it from my cold dead hands" attitude that just turns the average person against us gun enthusiasts. As soon as anyone on these boards states an opinion that varies at all from these philosophies they attack without hestitation. If the statement itself was not enough to justify attack they "embelish" and try to draw conclussions about what someone thinks from what they think they wrote, which they usually did not write in the first place. I have had to go back several times and ask people "where did I say that?" only to get the response "you emplied that..." It is a shame that you would attack someone on a statement like "I am not sure how I feel" (I even gave reasons for my hesitation and stated that I knew these were personal issues but will still love to be able to own one)...what a way to turn people against you and make the entire movement look bad. Seems to me that would be a time to try and sway someone your way, not turn them immediately against you. I see this on here all the time. I spent the last two days reading post as far back as I could and I see many people on here that have been rabidly attacked every time they state an opinion even slightly outside the "all or nothing" platform. And here is some advice...quoting the 2nd Amendment has not won a single case where a gun law was challenged as to it's constitutionality so start being a little more astute and get some better ammo. there are lots of better facts out there to support Gun ownership. A lot of people on here love to qualify that legal gun owners are safe, responsible people...then nwhat is wrong with having a simple litmus for who can own. And like I said it cannot be a case by case thing since that is to abitrary and easy to manipulate and deny whoever you fell like denying. It has to be concret...over 21, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, and take a gun safety course. And once you meet these simple requirement you can get a CCW and be a law abiding gun-toting American. I cannot believe that all the people on here have mental illness or a criminal record so what part of that is it that they protest? Do they love guns but not enough to take an hour out of their life to take a class? And do not give me that tired old slippery slope argument...the world is all about degrees of acceptance and tolerance and compromise. It is a shame that the gun movements worst enemy is often the gun movement itself. I see this in other movement also and it never ceases to amaze me. Like the gay rights movement when they are offered equal protect for civil unions but will not compromise on a stupid work like "marriage"...a word that belongs to the religous institutions to begin with so it is not up to the state to grant. I always thought these open forums were a place to express opinion and not be shouted down but according to several emails I have recieved from board members there is "...no use trying. There are not many open minds on the site and the ones that are there seldom speak up." If anyone on here thinks that kind of in-fighting and intolerance is going to advance the movement I will love to see what you think when all cities are like San Francisco. Do not fool yourself into thinking it cannot happen. It does not take much to cause a strong surge of backlash laws and look at all the news lately. A killing spree here in a NW Mall, a post worker killing spree, etc. Even though these would not have been stopped by tough gun laws do you think the average person will believe that or just follow the crowd when the "guns are the problem" contingent starts to shout. As for your statement...when you try to justify automatic weapons by saying something like who people were very adapt at slaughtering people even without them you are still putting forth a bad message. You cannot use death to justify more death. You are not going to make people say "I guess it okay if someone shoots up a mall since the Huns used to kill people by the thousands". OK attack dogs...go at me...I would actually find it funny if I didn't think that it was hurting the overall gun movement so badly.

PS- I haven't written that much since I did my thesis...this board is great as far as posting and being able to edit but it sure could use a spell check feature. :)

[rocky]

[sarcasm] I tell ya since the full autos are legal it has been a bloodbath, almost as bad as when they opened up the CCW laws in MI[sarcasm]
Understand that law abiding citizens do not comit crime nearly as much as criminals. Full auto will not cause a person to suddenly become evil and shoot people. MI has had C&R autos for a long time. This new ruling just opens up what can be owned.

[PlayboyPenguin]

[sarcasm] I tell ya since the full autos are legal it has been a bloodbath, almost as bad as when they opened up the CCW laws in MI[sarcasm]
Understand that law abiding citizens do not comit crime nearly as much as criminals. Full auto will not cause a person to suddenly become evil and shoot people. MI has had C&R autos for a long time. This new ruling just opens up what can be owned.

The only thing bad is that once they are legal to own we need to make sure there are limits as to who can produce and market or some gun makers will flood the market with cheap, unsafe autos solely for the black market. I do not think it is the law abiding citizen that buys one that will be any problem (like you or me) but instead some greedy corporation or gun maker than sees a way to make a quick buck. My second biggest fear (besides my association of autos with the death of many friends in the military) is the thought of how much a day at the range would cost me in ammo. I am betting a few hours of auto fire could probably equal a car payment. :D Would be fun though i bet since we never fired auto in the military...It was always 3 round burst unless you were laying quick movement cover fire which I never did. I did not even get an auto...since I was MI I was only issue a side holstered 9mm.

[Meplat]

READ the Federalist Papers!!

*sigh*.

Mr. Humphreys, don't you realize that the Federalist Papers are a biased polictical collection of writings yet? I don't CARE if they were written by the same people who penned the Constitution itself. They were just trying to use their own political views to justify having written such a poorly worded document.

*sheesh* How does one debate ANYONE who declares the Federalist Papers to be "biased political publications"?

If you read them, you would know that one of the key reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people to resist a tyrannical government (which is not surprising -- only 4 years before the Convention, the people HAD resisted and defeated a tyrannical government.)

That they did sir. In main, because of a determined and well armed general populace who "stood no chance against the mightiest army on earth". Does THAT sound familiar?

The people are the guarentors of their own liberty.

It's right sure no one else can be trusted with the job.

[Meplat]

I think you are missing the point...along with a lot of other frothing at the mouth attack dogs (not impying you are one but there are some on here). I poll was done just yesterday on this very board and (at the time) 63% on this board voted for gun control and had issue with people ( a full third of respondants) that said "everyone" should be allowed to purchase regardless of background, criminal history, age, or lack of training. What do think those numbers would be if the general public was polled...and the reason (in my opinion) is we have way to many FAR right people in the gun movement who will thump their breasts and quote the 2nd amendment

Nope. My Dad could quote me every single one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights well before the GCA of 1968. As could his Dad before him. Both had a grasp on the rest of the document as well. So, it's not the people who know what that document says who are the problem. The problem is in the leftist mass media who love hysteria and hate guns, and are so eager to brainwash the general public for fun and profit. It is in the leftist school systems who either teach that the Second Amendment applies only to National Guard troops (when the NG didn't even EXIST at the time of its penning), or "skip" over it altogther. And in "appeasement" types such as yourself who claim to have a grasp on what the Amendments were about, yet disprove any claim on credibility by calling the Federalist Papers "biased political publications". THERE'S our problem.


(even though they do not truely understand it any better than the next guy)

You mean the "next guy" who recognizes a subordinate clause as a subordinate clause, or who realizes that the Federalist Papers are a collection of writings penned by the SAME people who wrote the Constitution to begin with, and gave nothing more than further background for WHY they wrote it as they did?

I have had to go back several times and ask people "where did I say that?" only to get the response "you emplied that..."

Not once have you seen me state the you "emplied" anything, yet I have not seen you address any of my points in a line by line counter to them. You give quite enough information about your mindset by what you write without me having to figure out what you are implying.

It is a shame that you would attack someone on a statement like "I am not sure how I feel" (I even gave reasons for my hesitation and stated that I knew these were personal issues but will still love to be able to own one)...what a way to turn people against you and make the entire movement look bad.

As far as I know, I have attacked nothing but bad ideas and ill concieved posts.

Seems to me that would be a time to try and sway someone your way, not turn them immediately against you. I see this on here all the time. I spent the last two days reading post as far back as I could and I see many people on here that have been rabidly attacked every time they state an opinion even slightly outside the "all or nothing" platform.

*sigh* The leftists learned what the chieftain of an African village knew loooong ago. One eats an elephant ONE bite at the time. All of the Amendments contained within the Bill of Rights, like it or not, ARE an "all or nothing" proposition. Give the leftists even the FIRST bite, and they will be back for another forkfull as soon as they have swallowed.

And here is some advice...quoting the 2nd Amendment has not won a single case where a gun law was challenged as to it's constitutionality so start being a little more astute and get some better ammo.

Having seen the well directed reason displayed in your posts thus far, I will leave you and your free advice to someone who needs it. The plain naked fact is that the Second Amendment DOES recognize an INALIENABLE right, and thus can NEVER be irrelavent to a firearms rights discussion.

there are lots of better facts out there to support Gun ownership. A lot of people on here love to qualify that legal gun owners are safe, responsible people...then nwhat is wrong with having a simple litmus for who can own.

Err....that pesky 2nd again. Litmus tests are used in order to deny certain people in certain districts their rights. THAT is a fact. Just another way to "Bork" a citizen on a everyday scale.

And like I said it cannot be a case by case thing since that is to abitrary and easy to manipulate and deny whoever you fell like denying. It has to be concret...over 21, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, and take a gun safety course.

I underlined the part in question. Make it clear that I am not messing with nor manipulating your quotes. I just want to underscore my problem with it.
NOWHERE in the 2nd (that pesky 2nd again) does it say that people must receive government (or even private) training in order to execise their inalienable rights. You are not required to take any courses in English or Logic in order to post your views here. See: First Amendment. (BTW, one that leftists quote endlessly without turning people against the idea of free speech.)

And once you meet these simple requirement you can get a CCW and be a law abiding gun-toting American.

According to that pesky Second, your birth certificate IS your CCW. "...keep and bear..." Hard to "bear" something that you are prohibited from carrying.

I cannot believe that all the people on here have mental illness or a criminal record so what part of that is it that they protest?

Dunno. Could it be the same misuse of artificial litmus tests for citizens to deny the common man security in arms? People seem to think that it is impossible to get a permit to own a handgun in New York City. Fallacious belief. It's impossible if you are a commoner. If you are wealthy or powerful enough, you CAN get a permit.

Do they love guns but not enough to take an hour out of their life to take a class?

Have taken several classes myself. Took a lifelong one from my father. Not State sanctioned, but every bit as informative.

And do not give me that tired old slippery slope argument...the world is all about degrees of acceptance and tolerance and compromise.

So it is okay to rape a woman just a little bit? It is okay to beat a child unconcious under certain circumstances? No? you mean there ARE some things you don't think compromise is a good thing on?

It is a shame that the gun movements worst enemy is often the gun movement itself.

No sir, it is the leftists with their lies and half truths and demands for "compromise" who are the worst enemy. It is the soft brained people who buy into the leftist propoganda who are our second worst enemy.

I see this in other movement also and it never ceases to amaze me. Like the gay rights movement when they are offered equal protect for civil unions but will not compromise on a stupid work like "marriage"...a word that belongs to the religous institutions to begin with so it is not up to the state to grant. I always thought these open forums were a place to express opinion and not be shouted down but according to several emails I have recieved from board members there is "...no use trying. There are not many open minds on the site and the ones that are there seldom speak up." If anyone on here thinks that kind of in-fighting and intolerance is going to advance the movement

If you think that pointing out erroneous posts is "infighting" then so be it.

I will love to see what you think when all cities are like San Francisco. Do not fool yourself into thinking it cannot happen.

Are you really so blind that you can't see that I KNOW it can happen without a contingent of "no compromise" people willing to stand up and say "no more"?

It does not take much to cause a strong surge of backlash laws and look at all the news lately. A killing spree here in a NW Mall, a post worker killing spree, etc. Even though these would not have been stopped by tough gun laws do you think the average person will believe that or just follow the crowd when the "guns are the problem" contingent starts to shout.

And Heaven above knows that the grabbers wouldn't be shouting for the sheep to follow if we all "just compromised" on fully automatic weapons. Or semi-automatic firearms. Or bolt or lever action repeaters. Or single shot weapons. Or look to England, that glorious land of reasonable appeasement. They now are working on legislation to outlaw sharp points on steak knives. Seems someone there used one too many to stab someone with. Self defense is not a defense there, ya know?

As for your statement...when you try to justify automatic weapons by saying something like who people were very adapt at slaughtering people even without them you are still putting forth a bad message.

Oh dear. Forbid I should say something true. How ugly of me. And what I said was that if you studied the battles fought in ancient times, the bloodshed was WORSE because of the absence of firearms. A sword stroke at close range is a terrible thing.

You cannot use death to justify more death.

Do you have a reading impairment? (That is not a rhetorical question, btw). I never "justified" any death and dare you to show where I did. I merely stated the plain fact that the possession of firearms does NOT lead to more deaths, or even necessarily to easier murder, contrary to your posts. Quite the opposite, aamof. The possession of firearms has been proven to save many more lives than it allows to be taken. And even on the field of battle, it makes for more humane warfare.

You are not going to make people say "I guess it okay if someone shoots up a mall since the Huns used to kill people by the thousands". OK attack dogs...go at me...I would actually find it funny if I didn't think that it was hurting the overall gun movement so badly.

If by pointing out the fallacies in your posts, you think I have "hurt the cause", then I strongly suspect you need to re-evaluate how you assimilate information.

PS- I haven't written that much since I did my thesis...this board is great as far as posting and being able to edit but it sure could use a spell check feature. :)

*sigh* I hope the thesis wasn't on English comprehension. Upper right hand corner. "ABC" with a check mark underneath. You can download a spell checker there if you so desire.

[Meplat]

The only thing bad is that once they are legal to own we need to make sure there are limits as to who can produce and market or some gun makers will flood the market with cheap, unsafe autos solely for the black market.

I feel a STRONG case of either the giggles or a gagging fit coming on. That is one of the most laughable posts I've seen in years. What part of "limits" and "black market" do you see as NOT being compatable?

I do not think it is the law abiding citizen that buys one that will be any problem (like you or me) but instead some greedy corporation or gun maker than sees a way to make a quick buck.

True colors? Wow, and here you were talking about your concern with "the movement". You're quoting right from Sarah Brady's Bible about those "greedy gun makers".

[jtward01]

The Federalist Papers were essays written by the writers of the Constitution, explaining why it written the way it was. They were published in newspapers to help the ratification process along.

As good as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are they were not divinely carved in stone and carried down from some mountain top. They are simply the opinions of a handful of men - wise men no doubt, but men none the less - and only written in final form after many years (nine, I think it was) of arguing and wrangling. For all we know the wording of the second amendment is nothing more than compromise language accepted so those who opposed it could get their way on something else.

[carpettbaggerr]

My fear (or expectation) is that some moron in my neighborhood with more dollars than sense will get one of these. And he'll haul it out in his driveway on Dec 31, and at the stroke of midnight .... light up the neighborhood. This Detroit suburb sounds like a war zone anyway on New Years eve. Full auto and mass quantities of beer - wow.
Repeat after me " Innocent until proven guilty" After someone commits a crime, you can arrest and prosecute them.

Are you worried about your neighbors' Lamborghini? You know he plans to speed, don't you? Probably while drinking. 800 horsepower and mass quantities of beer.

Kapeesh?



What do think those numbers would be if the general public was polled... I could care less. That's the point of the Constitution.

How many people would be happy to allow warrantless searches? Prior Restraint? Double Jeopardy? Involuntary Servitude? Poll Taxes?

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. — On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.

Mills said it better than I could ever hope to.

[UberPhLuBB]

If that's the way you think then aren't you afraid that the government would be the only ones capable of "spraying and praying" over hundreds of citizens crowded together? That frightens me infinitely more than my fellow gun owners owning full-auto.

You must meet force with force, my friend. A few scattered shooters with hunting rifles an army does not make. By this logic, we should be allowed to purchase tanks and state of the art fighter jets as well, instead of being prevented from doing that by exclusive military contracts and FAA regulations.

It's scary to think about, even if it is very unlikely to happen. We NEED everything they have. Not want, NEED. Soldiers are people too, and some of them would no doubt defect, pushed by their morals. But as an Army grunt, you should know better than most the rigid control structure soldiers are subject to. Quitting and turning just aren't an option to most soldiers and they WILL fight us if told to, bringing their jets, helicopters, tanks and plenty of full-auto weapons to bear on us. And why not? What's to stop them? Certainly not us, with our $600 hunting rifles and pistols.

I'm no tinfoil wearing SHTFer, I rarely talk about this stuff. But think logically.

Sorry to get off topic folks.


PlayboyPenguin.

Once again, will you be ignoring this post? Or was the size 7, red text finally enough? It's against my common thinking to type something like this, and I did it just for you. I'd appreciate a response, even if it's just "yes, I'll be ignoring it."

[Vern Humphrey]

As good as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are they were not divinely carved in stone and carried down from some mountain top. They are simply the opinions of a handful of men - wise men no doubt, but men none the less - and only written in final form after many years (nine, I think it was) of arguing and wrangling. For all we know the wording of the second amendment is nothing more than compromise language accepted so those who opposed it could get their way on something else.

A few comments:

First of all, the Constitution was written in less than a year. They finished on September 17th, 1787. It was ratified by the required nine states (the remainder ratifying later) and went into effect in 1789. So it took only about three years from start to finish.

Secondly, despite the fact that it was written by fallible humans, it is the supreme law of the land, on which all other laws are based.

Third, the Constitution specifies the process by which it can be amended -- and "reinterpretation" or "living document" is not one of those processes.

In passing, I might also point out that it is the oldest written Constitution in the world, and while there are presently 27 Amendments, ten of these are the original Bill of Rights, two cancel each other out (the 18th and 21st). Of the remaining 15 Amendments, several are technical corrections (the 12th is a good example.) So significant amendments average about one per generation.

[chas_martel]

Where do you get this info from. I have been there and I never saw one family with auto weapons in their homes nor heard mention of it. In fact when we were in state there we were given instruction that the local gun laws were actually quite strict. Have they changed? is this something that used to be true but is no longer? just curious.. As for picking up rocks being equivelant to using a gun you need to step back and rethink that...if someone had just had a rock I would not have seen my friend SSG A. Michell shot in the back from a hundred yards out while handing out candy to local children...if someone had only had a blade I would not have been present when 3 men lost their lives to automatic weapons fire from a nearby roof top in the very spot that a friend of mine and I had been standing mere seconds earlier, etc.

What does any of the above have to do with my rights?

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by PlayboyPenguin
Where do you get this info from. I have been there and I never saw one family with auto weapons in their homes nor heard mention of it. In fact when we were in state there we were given instruction that the local gun laws were actually quite strict. Have they changed? is this something that used to be true but is no longer? just curious.. As for picking up rocks being equivelant to using a gun you need to step back and rethink that...if someone had just had a rock I would not have seen my friend SSG A. Michell shot in the back from a hundred yards out while handing out candy to local children...if someone had only had a blade I would not have been present when 3 men lost their lives to automatic weapons fire from a nearby roof top in the very spot that a friend of mine and I had been standing mere seconds earlier, etc.

What does any of the above have to do with my rights?

What you see here is the bizzare (but often argued) proposition that people who would shoot a solider in the back would never break the law and possess an illegal gun!!

[silliman89]

Vern Humphrey -- # 114
... I might also point out that it is the oldest written Constitution in the world ...

Not to disagree with your point at all, but I think you meant the oldest federal constitution in the world. The Massachusetts Constitution is older.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_constitution

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ... was adopted in 1780 and is often called the oldest functioning written constitution in the world.

Also ...

The oldest written constitution of an existing nation may be that of San Marino. ... Written in 1600, the document ... still remains the basic law in effect today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

[Kim]

Am I to believe the guy who started doesn't understand the Constitution is fighting in the military in Iraq. What do they teach the Military about our rights in this country. Anything????????? I know there are alot of people who think the way he does. I just disagree with him. He is like everyone on the left or those in the mushy middle who really know just a little to be dangerous. They hem and haw about the Constitution and BOR they bend and twist and try to make it fit into what they want it to say. Nothing new here. It has been going on since the Progressive Movement started. It will not stop.. The question is who will win. I hope the people do. Not the State. Is he aware the the private ownership of machineguns is legal in all but 12 states. I guess 11 now. He is upset about something that is the majority law of the land. But he did not notice the militia system in Switzerland so how in heavens would he know he is in the minority in his own country. :scrutiny:

[carebear]

I really did not have anything to add here... I just found it funny that someone on a gun board is called "Carebear" I just had to sit down and sketch this...forgive the crudeness of the drawing...since I am on the job site all I had was a sharpy marker and the back of some old wallpaper to draw on...I then took a pic with my cell cam and uploaded it to my portable to color it. :)

That's cool. :)

It's a nickname (riffed from my last name) given me by one of my SOI instructors. I can't make a "war face" to save my life, so carebear it was.

After I joined my Recon unit I kept it as my callsign just to piss off all the "Bearslayers" "Grim Reapers" and "Death Dealers". You could hear them audibly pause and choke on the net when calling me.

[Vern Humphrey]

Not to disagree with your point at all, but I think you meant the oldest federal constitution in the world. The Massachusetts Constitution is older.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_constitution



Also ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

Interesting. Still and all, nothing really compares to the Constitution of the United States.

[Sam Adams]

While I assume that you are a person of good will with sincerely held beliefs, I am here to tell you that the positions you have stated regarding full auto guns sound quite a bit like quotes or paraphrases from the position papers of a number of anti-gun organizations. I prefer to believe that you are simply not familiar with the arguments on the pro-gun side of the controversy, rather than that you are a troll, and it is in that spirit that I have written this post.

Originally Posted by Kodiaz
The Army, Marines, National Guard, Air Force and Navy are not the militia. They are all branches of the govt.'s military. They all go where they are told when they are told. The purpose of the militia is to fight the govt. not to do what it says.
Hmmm...a new definition to me. But to each his own opinion. Like I said...I am undecided. Just for reference here is the dictionary definition of militia.

mi·li·tia P Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Kodiaz is correct in stating that the National Guard of the various states are parts of the federal government, and are not the "militia" as that term was either originally conceived or as it is currently defined in US law.

It is part of the federal military, as ruled unanimously by the US Supreme Court in PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) 496 U.S. 334 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=334

As stated, current law states that the "militia" (i.e. the "unorganized" militia of current law) is not the National Guard. The National Guard is part of the "organized militia" of current law (which is directly comparable to the "select militia" like the Minutemen of colonial times) and distinctly unlike the ordinary farmer who brought his gun to take shots at the Brits at Lexington and Concord, Cowpens, and a host of other battles throughout the Revolutionary War, who was part of what would today be called the "unorganized Militia."

[QUOTE]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
Release date: 2005-07-12

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are

[Sam Adams]

Continuation of prior post:

[QUOTE](b) The classes of the militia are

[Sam Adams]

Corrected continuation of Post #121 (somethings messed up with the posting system):

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Now, as for Kodiaz' statement that: The purpose of the militia is to fight the govt. not to do what it says.

Let's just say that this isn't what the law says. In fact, without quoting chapter and verse as above, the militia is subject to call-up by the government to deal with various emergencies, including civil insurrection and foreign invasion (and it was, in the distant past, called up for both purposes). However, one must keep in mind that the militia of colonial days was used to overthrow the then-current legal government by a bunch of revolutionaries. Those revolutionaries are now revered as our Founding Fathers (and properly so), who wrote the 2nd Amendment for a purpose. In reading the Federalist Papers (particularly #46, by Madison - the key writer of the Constitution and later a President), it is evident that those creating the then-new representative republic that we now live in were deathly afraid of a powerful central government. [Oh, and BTW, the Federalist Papers are NOT a bunch of biased political claptrap - they are the explanation of what the Constititution means by those who wrote it. Yes, of course they wanted it passed, otherwise why write it - but it IS the law of the land. So what on Earth is the problem with using the explanation of those who wrote the law to discover the law's meaning? It is the closest thing that we have to a legislative history of the Constitution and the Amendments - whether you or I agree with them or not]. They and their compatriots had, after all, only just finished fighting one such government only about 8 years before the 2nd Amendment was proposed, and they surely did not want to create conditions that would make a domestic version of King George's government more possible. Thus, though they understood and acknowledged that some central authority was needed to have commerce flow smoothly and to coordinate national defense, they specifically limited the fed.gov's authority and split it between the branches (mostly between the Executive and the Legislative - the Judicial wasn't conceived of as anywhere near as important as it is today). However, the final back-up, the Constitutional Reset Button if you will, is the 2nd Amendment. If our government reverts/decays into a tyranny, the whole body of the population would have the means protected by which they could initiate and prevail in a 2nd American Revolution.

As to the legality or protection of the right of the People to own full auto guns under the 2nd Amendment, I suggest that you look at United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html This analysis makes it clear that the militia not only can, but should be armed with weapons comparable to those wielded by the average infantryman of the armed forces, i.e. it keeps up with the times. This is consistant with the 1st Amendment, in that no one then could conceive of faxes, email or modern high-speed presses, just like no one knew about machine guns (though I believe that there was some patent filed in the mid-1700s in England for just such a device). Failure to admit this for the 2nd Amendment would, by the same logic, permit fed.gov censureship of all newspapers, all email and all faxes - something that no rational person who likes the US has ever advocated.

[UberPhLuBB]

I take Penguin's absense and discounting of my post to mean he's either given up his ideal or has given up fighting us and moved over to the DU forums. :D

[mp510]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.:cool:

10 USC 311, says that all American citizens, and those who intend to be citizens and are between 17 and 45 years old, male and not part of the national guard or naval militia are members of the unorganized militia of the United States. Here is the law:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



I believe that civilians should be able to own machine guns. Generally, the reason for the control of arms, is so that the government may have a monopoly on force, and ensure it's power, a la PR China, PDR Korea, etc...
As you made very clear, fully automatic weapons are for nothing other than killing people and are suitable only for the military. That said, you are implying that the government should have a monopoly on force, which sets a slippery slope towards the end of personal defense a la England.

The NFA of 1934 was a reactionary measure to the prohibition violence. While I don't have the numbers handy right now, I know for a fact that after prohibiton and prior to the NFA, machine gun violence decreased dramatically.

Mr. Playboypenguin, you said that you might someday be interested in owning a fully automatic firearm for occasional target shooting and the interest in having one. I know from your other posts that you like affordable firearms, like most of us. Fully automatic firearms would be a lot less expensive if they were not forbidden from current manufacture.

I am not trying to flame you, just present my case:)

[mp510]

I would also agree, that the militia is not regulated enough. And, by regulated, I don't mean have 20,000 unnecesary laws putting excessive burdeon on them. There should be a whole lot more public firearms training (and other defense training), and it should me cumpolsery as it was in our nations younger days.

[badr1]

Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.:cool:
:confused: try to organize a militia with like weapons as say the US armed forces publicly and see how fast you get shut down or more than likely shot down it's BS but the government is scared to death that given the chance the people would take over and things might be as they were intended in the consitution the people would choose a leader not THE RICHEST MAN GETS TO THE TOP OF THE BALLOT AND PAYS SOMEONE TO RIG A FEW STATES VOTING MACHINES we need a president that's had to worry about bouncing a check at the piggly wiggly to feed his kids has worked 14-16 hours a day since he physically could (not at a desk) but bleeding and sweating for every dime he ever had and was truly a leader not just doing what brings in votes for his next 4 year stint. or what makes him rich. you all may not agree but that's just it if things were the way they were intended we could disagree without all the lawsuits and politics i mean who got sued in 1890 for someone breaking into their house NOONE they shot the intruder threw him outside an undertaker picked him up and life went on. now if someone breaks your window climbs through it and cuts themselves they sue you for having windows that are sharp when they break????:banghead:

[badr1]

PS just my $.02 ;)

[UberPhLuBB]

Oh my god, periods please! :uhoh:

[straightShot]

Talk about a hijacked thread! Wow.

It appears that almost all have swallowed all of this, including the hook, line, and sinker.

..."flood the streets with unsafe guns"...sheez...sounds like something from one of those anti-freedom groups

[Vern Humphrey]

I take Penguin's absense and discounting of my post to mean he's either given up his ideal or has given up fighting us and moved over to the DU forums.

Dorks Unlimited?:evil:

[kel]

Means well equipped. It has absolutely nothing to do with restrictions placed by the government. The language of the times differs substantialy from the language of today. I am disappointed.