Professional soldier forbidden full auto.


PDA






Owen Sparks
March 8, 2011, 06:48 PM
A friend who is in the military came home on leave. His job in Afghanistan is to man the belt fed machine gun on an armored vehicle. You could say that he is a professional machine gunner. While he was home he went to the range with me and shot ARís. His personal rifle is set up just like his issue M-16 except that it lacks the full auto feature.

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

If you enjoyed reading about "Professional soldier forbidden full auto." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AlexanderA
March 8, 2011, 06:55 PM
He doesn't "own" his issue MG either.

EddieNFL
March 8, 2011, 07:03 PM
Missed that one, eh?

Don't expect much logic from .gov. Since current leadership views us as "potential" domestic terrorists, I'm surprised there isn't pending legislation to deny firearm ownership to veterans.

dogtown tom
March 8, 2011, 07:16 PM
Owen Sparks ....I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.
Uhhh........because even soldiers home on leave have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

JackTheRipper
March 8, 2011, 07:22 PM
aren't Iraqis allowed to own 1 automatic machine gun in their home?

jonmerritt
March 8, 2011, 07:24 PM
Because someone will take it from him and use it on him.

S.W.G.
March 8, 2011, 07:35 PM
I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.


Whoa, whoa, back up a minute.

Are you suggesting that soldiers should be exempt from civilian firearm laws?

That would create a SERIOUS conflict of interests. If you work for the government, you get special priviledges that we meager peasants don't.

If I can't have it, he can't either.

Once you start giving .gov employees 'perks', they are no longer our equals, they become an elite class.

Just look at congress. Do you really want that kind of gap opening up between the military and the citizenry?

Slippery slope...

Sam1911
March 8, 2011, 07:39 PM
Lot of misunderstanding.

First off, he COULD own a full-auto transferrable machine gun, just as could you or I. That's the law of the land, though some states are more restrictive.

Second, just like police officers and federal LEOs, he has a job in which he may be issued an automatic weapon, but he does not own it, can't choose when and where to use it on his own, and can't transport it around on his own without orders.

Third, doing a little research on what the military requires in storage, use, and handling of firearms when not in a combat zone will surprise you a lot more than this. Soldiers are heavily restricted as to when and how they may carry and store NOT just their issued weapons, but their privately owned firearms as well! Far more so than an equivalent civilian of the same age and living in the same town.

Ironic, perhaps, but not surprising.

THE DARK KNIGHT
March 8, 2011, 08:08 PM
I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Forget machine guns. How about a guy that's old enough to have been through two tours in Afghanistan, and when he comes home on leave, he's too "young" for his buddy to take him out for a few beers as a way of saying thanks.

John Wayne
March 8, 2011, 08:12 PM
You sign away virtually all of your rights when you join the military. Why is it surprising that someone in the military, who already has fewer rights than civilians, would not be able to own an item that is already not available (without restriction) to civilians?

redbullitt
March 8, 2011, 08:19 PM
He should get the paper rolling, go back overseas for work and BAM nice surprise when he gets home lol.

hso
March 8, 2011, 08:27 PM
I hope you're not proposing "some animals are more equal than others".

Your buddy is part of a unit with supervision and rules of engagement. He's not acting completely on his own. Not exactly the same as the veterinarian who can afford the bucks for a transferable M16 and who's passed the background checks purchasing an NFA weapon requires.

Is your beef with the fact that the registry was closed in 86 and nothing more modern is available for those who can pass the required background checks or that there's any requirement at all?

J_McLeod
March 8, 2011, 08:31 PM
Lot of misunderstanding.

First off, he COULD own a full-auto transferrable machine gun, just as could you or I. That's the law of the land, though some states are more restrictive.

Second, just like police officers and federal LEOs, he has a job in which he may be issued an automatic weapon, but he does not own it, can't choose when and where to use it on his own, and can't transport it around on his own without orders.

Third, doing a little research on what the military requires in storage, use, and handling of firearms when not in a combat zone will surprise you a lot more than this. Soldiers are heavily restricted as to when and how they may carry and store NOT just their issued weapons, but their privately owned firearms as well! Far more so than an equivalent civilian of the same age and living in the same town.

Ironic, perhaps, but not surprising.
This is a good post. More than having to follow the civilian firearms law, I resent being subjected to even high communist scrutiny while on base with my private weapons. No CCW, no exceptions, all vehicles on base subject to search, and cannot transport firearms except to and from the range. I've spent over three years walking around Iraq with an M16 and lots of ammo. Despite the fact I (and hundreds of thousands of others) shot no other soldiers with that weapon, I can't even have my pistol locked in my trunk in the parking lot at work so I can go to the range later. It's crazy. Commanders think that soldiers with their own weapons are an inherent safety risk. Not sure where those commanders think they are, but we handle firearms for a living. And we have to register all weapons brought on post. AF bases will make you check your weapon at the base arms room for the duration of your stay on base. Id' like to see Congress fix this like they did with the national parks.

Nushif
March 8, 2011, 08:36 PM
I do find something ironic here. But not that he wasn't allowed a full auto.

I find it funny that for some reason there's this notion that soldier's are somehow above the law.

marktx
March 8, 2011, 08:36 PM
I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Who cares about a boring machine gun..... I'm mad the feds won't let me buy an F-16 (would have to win the lottery) and fly it around when I'm off duty. Would be happy to have the internal gun removed, more room for fuel.... Just free to blast around the skies :)

BleysAhrens
March 8, 2011, 08:52 PM
I did not think an AR-15 was full auto anymore? In the military you live under probably more than double the rules than in the outside world. YOU can be accountable for what your wife does. So why would they trust anyone with an automatic weapon with out being under direct supervision, or orders? Not that he cant have one, just that the military does not want to be responsible on his time.

Dulvarian
March 8, 2011, 09:06 PM
Anyone that things that military members have more rights than others, especially when it comes to firearms... You are sadly, sadly mistaken. Especially when it comes to on base. Bring a gun to work on a civilian place of employment, you face a trespassing charge? Guess what happens when you bring it to federal installation?

An oft quoted maxim: "We defend democracy. We don't practice it."

If you have never looked into it, there are freedoms that we support and defend in the Constitution that we don't get to exercise quite so freely as do others.

No one take any of that wrong, it just is what it is.

J_McLeod
March 8, 2011, 09:11 PM
Anyone that things that military members have more rights than others, especially when it comes to firearms... You are sadly, sadly mistaken. Especially when it comes to on base. Bring a gun to work on a civilian place of employment, you face a trespassing charge? Guess what happens when you bring it to federal installation?

An oft quoted maxim: "We defend democracy. We don't practice it."

If you have never looked into it, there are freedoms that we support and defend in the Constitution that we don't get to exercise quite so freely as do others.

No one take any of that wrong, it just is what it is.
I've never needed to know, so I can't say all the specifics, but I am sure that in several states it is perfectly legal have a gun in your trunk at work, and in many cases CCW while at work. I don't think the military should have any more rights, just the same as everyone else.

Sunray
March 8, 2011, 09:27 PM
Up here, he'd have to write a test and pass a handling test to own a .22 rifle or pistol. Mind you, how the military uses firearms isn't the same as the way civilians use 'em. How many times have you been told to wait 30 seconds or more for a 'hang fire'. Military IA drill's teach to clear it immediately.
"...too "young" for his buddy to take him out for a few beers..." Yep. Old enough to serve, but not be served.

AlexanderA
March 8, 2011, 10:43 PM
I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

The original poster could be making one of two points: (a) that everyone should be allowed to own full auto weapons without the need for registration, or (b) that members of the military should be exempted from the laws that apply generally.

I have a serious problem with the second proposition. It sets up the military as an elite class, something the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, with their aversion to a standing army and their insistence on civilian control (specifying an elected President as C in C).

As for the first proposition, it is arguable, but it's unlikely that we're going to get to relitigate the National Firearms Act of 1934. As a matter of fact, if we simply went back to the regulatory scheme of the original NFA of 1934, it would be an improvement over what we have now.

Iftrue
March 8, 2011, 11:02 PM
We can only own pre-1986 class-III weapons. This is unacceptable. The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are. When the state creates itself as the supreme controller of force, bad things happen.

Tanks, jets, missiles - if you can own it, then so can I. The history of government is the history of violence; it's the only means of forcing taxation upon any unwilling individual to finance one's "governing."

Remember that only a few generations ago, Lincoln invaded the states of the south to maintain tax revenue. Were a state to peacefully secede, I feel confident that the current president (Republican or Democrat), would react the same.

MR_A
March 8, 2011, 11:09 PM
When I was in the Navy we fired a 5" 54 and carried nuclear asrocs, and I carried a Thompson on boarding details and security that did not give me the right to have or use those weapons while on leave or any other time except in the official scope of my Military duties.Not trying to be being a smart butt, I don't get the point.

kingpin008
March 8, 2011, 11:23 PM
Tanks, jets, missiles - if you can own it, then so can I.

You're right - if you have the cash, you can own all those things as a civilian.

Vyacheslav
March 8, 2011, 11:47 PM
give me a break, he should only be allowed to own what regular civilians can own

Gordon_Freeman
March 8, 2011, 11:53 PM
The same people who are allowed to own semi auto guns should be allowed to go to a gun store and buy new full auto machine guns without having to jump through hoops.

CZguy
March 8, 2011, 11:54 PM
Remember that only a few generations ago, Lincoln invaded the states of the south to maintain tax revenue. Were a state to peacefully secede, I feel confident that the current president (Republican or Democrat), would react the same.

I'm no fan of President Lincoln, but you might enjoy reading about Fort Sumptner.

And as to our "current president (Republican or Democrat), would react the same. To keep a state in the Union". Well that is in their job description to do just that.

NavyLCDR
March 8, 2011, 11:58 PM
Heck, it's even prohibited from wearing a personal firearm when in uniform because it is against the uniform regulations! So that means, when I do a re-enlistment or some other function in town (off base), in uniform, I can't wear my own gun for my own self-protection in uniform! As soon as I take the uniform off, though, I am good to go.

nwilliams
March 9, 2011, 12:08 AM
Should a professional race car driver allowed to drive 160mph to work every day just because he drives fast professionally for a living?

I have great respect for people who serve but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Anyone who goes through the proper procedure and gets approved by the ATF can own a machine gun, just because you may have used one in the military doesn't mean you're more qualified to own one.

Big Bad Bob
March 9, 2011, 12:29 AM
I shouldn't even post on this, but oh well im bored.

I do agree with a lot of what you are saying, i defend the Constitution and the laws of this nation. I do NOT believe that entitles me to be above them.

However, i do feel that my extensive firearms training and use in combat should be taken into consideration when bypassing CCW classes and such. This is the case in SC. Have sidearm training, don't have to have the class for CCW.

As a combat veteran of our great nation I really do not want special privileges, You know what I really want? I want Americans to care about what me and others are doing. I want Americans to care more about the 19 year old who got triple amputed by an IED and NOT if Lindsay Lohan checked out of rehab or how much blow Charlie Sheen does on daily basis.

I would take that any day over the right to own a Class III firearm.

Thanks to all of you who posted about your support for our military service members. Its greatly appreciated.

NMGonzo
March 9, 2011, 12:55 AM
I am too old to be drafted now.

But any citizen of this nation who happens to be sound of mind and law abiding should have issued 3,000 round of ammo and a m16 .

Good luck with any invading army.

BleysAhrens
March 9, 2011, 01:16 AM
Big Bad Bob:
+1 Well said!

I really don't think average Joe could defend the land of our wonderful country any better with a full auto than with a semi auto. Shot placement...

Bubba613
March 9, 2011, 07:55 AM
The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are.

Why? Do you think soldiers who kill people on the battlefield should be held until they can justify the shooting?

When the state creates itself as the supreme controller of force, bad things happen.
Like law and order?

However, i do feel that my extensive firearms training and use in combat should be taken into consideration when bypassing CCW classes and such

You were trained for particular jobs and particular scenarios, not all of which are applicable to civilian life. Personally I think military and police who want the same permit as private citizens need to go through even more extensive training on the differences.

jimmyraythomason
March 9, 2011, 08:14 AM
When the state creates itself as the supreme controller of force, bad things happen. Like law and order?
I was thinking more along the lines of Fascism.

Nushif
March 9, 2011, 08:24 AM
Why? Do you think soldiers who kill people on the battlefield should be held until they can justify the shooting?

Well. They *are* investigated.

SaxonPig
March 9, 2011, 08:40 AM
My former boss was an AF officer who spent the 1970s sitting in a missile silo with the launch key to an ICBM around his neck waiting for the phone to ring.

They didn't let him bring anything home with him, either.

Just saying...

Wes B
March 9, 2011, 09:57 AM
As citizens we all follow the same rules, not accounting for variations in rules from state to state. If you don't like the rules the options are, as I see them:

First: if you want to change the laws; vote.

Second: if you can't find anyone that is supportive of the laws you want enacted; run for political office, then you can start the process of changing the laws yourself.

Third: Move to a state where the laws are more to your liking.

Bubba613
March 9, 2011, 10:13 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of Fascism.
I was thinking more along the lines of anarchy.

Well. They *are* investigated.

Only if they violate ROEs.

Gordon_Freeman
March 9, 2011, 10:32 AM
Law abiding citizens should be able to own full auto guns. I can understand restricting violent criminals and the mentally handicapped.

AlexanderA
March 9, 2011, 10:33 AM
The same people who are allowed to own semi auto guns should be allowed to go to a gun store and buy new full auto machine guns without having to jump through hoops.

If the truth be told, in most tactical situations, a semiautomatic is just as effective as the equivalent full automatic -- maybe more so, since inexperienced or jittery shooters would be less likely to waste ammunition. Militarily, you use a full auto mostly for suppressive fire. What would be the civilian scenarios in which this would apply?

If semiautomatic military rifles had been prevalent in 1934, it's likely that the NFA would have covered them. (Remember that the NFA of 1934 was pre-M1 Garand.) Really, the NFA was aimed against one gun -- the Thompson. The Thompson got a bad press because of its use by gangsters and strikebreakers. What I'm saying is that we're lucky that semiautomatics are not regulated by the NFA.

As things stand now (considering the legal and practical restrictions), the ownership and use of full automatics by civilians is mainly (or exclusively) for "fun." "Fun" is almost synonymous with "sporting purposes" -- and as we all know, the Second Amendment is not about "sporting purposes." It's about protecting the right to serious personal and societal defense. In other words, you can't make a Second Amendment argument for recreational use.

Gordon_Freeman
March 9, 2011, 10:45 AM
Yea right. I'm sure the founding fathers of this country never used their guns for fun. The founding fathers never intended for government agencies to be more well armed than the citizens of this country.

DammitBoy
March 9, 2011, 10:47 AM
Any regular law abiding citizen of these United States ought to be able to own any firearm our military uses.

Any "sporting uses" laws should be struck down as unconstitutional. All NFA laws are unconstitutional.

Unless you think the 2nd amendment is about hunting.

nwilliams
March 9, 2011, 12:20 PM
It sounds like most of you are against the idea of law abiding citizens owning full auto guns.
No it sounds like most people here are against the idea that just because you used a machine gun in the military doesn't give you special right to own one as a civilian.

If someone wants a FA gun then they should be required to go through the same procedure as everyone else regardless of whether they served or not.

The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are.
Why? Do you think soldiers who kill people on the battlefield should be held until they can justify the shooting?
There's a big difference between a soldier who is required to kill on the battlefield and civilian who has to kill in self defense.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 12:46 PM
I made the original post NOT to infer that people who worked for the government should have special rights and privileges beyond those of commoners, but to illustrate the double standard and hypocrisy of gun laws. Someone pointed out that it would also be illegal to buy a returning veteran a beer if he is under 21. You could make the same correlation about him buying a hand gun just like the one he has carried on his side for the last couple of years in the line of duty. It seems that restrictions on weapons are based on what is in the best interest of the state and now days it is not in the best interest of the federal government for you to have access to our nations service rifle, no matter how competent you might be with it.

dirtykid
March 9, 2011, 12:51 PM
+2 Big Bad Bob,, if 60% of america quit giving a <Ideleted> about Lohan or Sheen or Tiger or whoever else's train-wreck the media decides to highlight this week,they would be forced to acknowledge that WE are still in a war,and OUR citizens are getting injured or killed,, not as often as it was at first but it's still happening !! whenever somebody here at work brings up crap like Lohan or Sheen,I always say "Huh, wonder how the Taliban feel about that"... needless to say im not winning any popularity contest's,, but,,,,,,,,,,, <deleted> if they cant see the world as it REALLY is,, and not according to Hollywood,,, thank you for your service,, pray for our troops safety,,

xcgates
March 9, 2011, 01:08 PM
Why is it that so many jumped on the bandwagon of saying that the OP meant that members of the military should be in a special class, exempt from the laws of normal people?

Personally I thought it was clear he thought it was crazy that we can't own automatic guns. ("We" being everyday citizens here)

And as far as the laws military members are subject to, when we are in the states, we are subject to the UCMJ in addition to all the normal laws.

*Still thinks the difference of 18 and 21 is a stupid differential to decide when someone can legally do something.

dmancornell
March 9, 2011, 01:18 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of anarchy.

I'll take a bit of anarchy over the police state we have going right now.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 01:26 PM
xcgates said: *Still thinks the difference of 18 and 21 is a stupid differential to decide when someone can legally do something.

An 18 year old kid just a few months out of highschool who never handeled a firearm before is deemed compitent to be issued a machine gun if it serves the purposes of the government. 30 years after his enlistment ends, that same individual could have become an IPSC state 3 gun champ or master gunsmith yet be forbidden a non registered M-16because it no longer serves the purposes of the government for him to have a modern military firearm.

RimfireChris
March 9, 2011, 01:30 PM
Just my $0.02, but I've been of the opinion for awhile if the POTUS protection detail can have it, a citizen should be able to have it for their defense. No, president, senator or other member of gov't is entitled to more protection than the rest of us. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the level of protection they do, but it shouldn't be harder for one of us to have the same.

Big_Dogg
March 9, 2011, 01:50 PM
I find it funny that for some reason there's this notion that soldier's are somehow above the law.

Its understandable that people think that, being as how our government and court systems have time and time again shown us that local police as well as DEA, etc. ARE INDEED above the law. (just like extremely rich/famous people are above the law, and get the pleasure of a different justice system than we all have to face)

Until the courts start handing out the same sentences to officers as it does to the average citizen, then of course everyone is going to think that.

HorseSoldier
March 9, 2011, 02:01 PM
I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

Forget full auto -- look at US military policies for personally owned weapons on posts here in the US and you'll get a feel for how little the US military trusts its personnel with firearms at all.

Only if they violate ROEs.

Not exactly. There are investigations to determine if the ROE/RUF was violated in the first place as well.

AlexanderA
March 9, 2011, 02:09 PM
Yea right. I'm sure the founding fathers of this country never used their guns for fun. The founding fathers never intended for government agencies to be more well armed that the citizens of this country.

What the Founding Fathers used their guns for is irrelevant. The Constitution is a political document, and the Second Amendment specifically preserves the citizens' rights to the means of self-defense and community defense. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, skeet shooting, or "fun" in general, and it protects collecting and target shooting (arguably) only as adjuncts to its basic purpose, which is personal and collective defense.

"Recreational use" or "sporting purpose" are red herrings concocted by anti-gunners as a means of dividing gun owners. The idea is to make hunting and other shooting sports seem more "socially acceptable" while making self-defense and other serious uses more "socially unacceptable." People concerned about Second Amendment rights should fight tooth and nail against the whole "sporting purpose" concept.

I agree in principle that the citizenry should be as well-armed as the government (assuming that, even in a democracy, the "government" is somehow apart from the "citizenry"). Realistically, though, the government is always going to have the financial and organizational resources to go the citizenry one better.

Uteridge
March 9, 2011, 02:24 PM
Quote:
I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

The original poster could be making one of two points: (a) that everyone should be allowed to own full auto weapons without the need for registration, or (b) that members of the military should be exempted from the laws that apply generally.

I have a serious problem with the second proposition. It sets up the military as an elite class, something the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, with their aversion to a standing army and their insistence on civilian control (specifying an elected President as C in C).

As for the first proposition, it is arguable, but it's unlikely that we're going to get to relitigate the National Firearms Act of 1934. As a matter of fact, if we simply went back to the regulatory scheme of the original NFA of 1934, it would be an improvement over what we have now.

You are exactly right. A civilian should be able to buy anything that we use in the military. Current military weapons were available to civilians at the time of the founding fathers and many of the militias, which were made up of armed citizens were better armed than the armies of the day. No the military should not have special privileges when it comes to owning weapons (except for waiving training requirements for CCW and similar).

What always makes me mad is that we are not supposed to carry weapons on base. I have to drive into the 9th Ward to go to work every single day. I can legally carry leaving my house, driving the full hour to work, and any stops along the way and I am good to go but the second I step foot on base I become a raging lunatic that cannot be trusted with a weapon. This doesn't make sense. If I followed the rules, not saying that I don't, then I would be required to drive through one of the most dangerous places in the U.S. every day to work unarmed because of the base regulations. That is a great way to treat someone who risks their life for their country by fighting our wars; take away my ability to defend myself on a very dangerous drive to work.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 02:30 PM
the second I step foot on base I become a raging lunatic that cannot be trusted with a weapon. This doesn't make sense.

The collectivist attitude of the military sees the individual as no better than the weakest link in the group or the lowest common denominator. Therefore if one person in the military snaps and goes gihad, then EVERYBODY is treated as a potential terrorist.

This is how gun laws work in general. They treat everyone like a potential criminal before the fact based on what they MIGHT do in the future.

CZguy
March 9, 2011, 02:44 PM
*Still thinks the difference of 18 and 21 is a stupid differential to decide when someone can legally do something.


Well, I agree with you..........but in many cases it should be more like 40. :D

I was surprised that some people weren't aware, that when entering the service you forfeit many of your constitutional rights, and fall under the UCMJ (Uniform code of military justice) which is much more stringent.

Toaster
March 9, 2011, 03:05 PM
As to the OP, Jerry Miculek could be considered a professional handgunner. If he comes to Illinois he won't be allowed to carry concealed, nor open. A persons profession does not override the law.
If your friend has his heart set on owning a fully automatic weapon he should begin by applying for his FFL.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 03:31 PM
As to the OP, Jerry Miculek could be considered a professional handgunner. If he comes to Illinois he won't be allowed to carry concealed, nor open. A persons profession does not override the law.


The law would treat him like the lowest common denominator, the weakest link who can't be trusted with a weapon. You have heard it before, "If some people can not behave themselves with X, then NOBODY can have X (except the government of course)This is totaly contrairy to our system of justice where the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser (the state) You should not have to prove yourself worthy to exercise a constitutional right, the burden of proof should be on the state to prove you unworthy through due process before denying you your Second Amendment rights.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 03:39 PM
The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Gun laws do exactly that, they deprive you of your Second Amendment liberties, the ONE thing you are guaranteed the right to “keep and bear” by the Constitution until you prove yourself innocent of the POTENTIAL for future crime. Or in some cases like in Illinois not at all.

oneounceload
March 9, 2011, 06:43 PM
wow....reading these posts is a nice wake-up call regarding the intelligence, maturity, and responsibility of the current gun owners.........................very scary

dogtown tom
March 9, 2011, 07:05 PM
oneounceload wow....reading these posts is a nice wake-up call regarding the intelligence, maturity, and responsibility of the current gun owners.........................very scary

Even more scary is this ^:eek:

:scrutiny:Care to point out where anyone:
-showed a lack of intelligence?
-has acted immature?
-or has shown a lack of responsibility?

Questioning the intelligence, maturity and responsibility of those with whom you disagree is not The High Road. Especially when the thread has been civil.

GRIZ22
March 9, 2011, 07:37 PM
How about a guy that's old enough to have been through two tours in Afghanistan, and when he comes home on leave, he's too "young" for his buddy to take him out for a few beers as a way of saying thanks.

Having personally been through this I say suck it up and there will always be a line drawn somewhere and usually with some reasoning behind it. I went in the Army at 17 to Vietnam at 18 back from Vietnam at 19 discharged a 20 year old NCO and still could not buy a drink, vote, sign a contract and a whole bunch of other things besides even buying a handguneven though the Army gave me full auto weapons, handguns, and even howitzers to shoot. If i were able to take R&R back home now I wouldn't be allowed to buy cigarettes. 3 years later I was a teacher and there was 18 year old drinking. Everywhere the Army sent me (including stateside) I could at least buy beer. At 23 I had kids in my classes that worked as bartenders, the high school kids didn't have to find a derelict to buy their booze because they could have a classmate to do it. Drinking ages all went back up to 21.

I agree people should be allowed to own just about anything but as others have said I know 40 year old people who shouldn;t be allowed to drive a car or own guns both of which they can do legally. there's always a line and it ain't always wrong.

kayak-man
March 9, 2011, 08:00 PM
We can only own pre-1986 class-III weapons. This is unacceptable. The military should be subject to the exact same laws civilians are.

I just find it kind of odd that a person who the government trusts to sit behind a belt fed machine gun all day every day for six months is prohibited by law from owning a non registered full auto weapon during the two weeks that he is home on leave.

I agree, the government should be subject to the same laws that we the citizenry are subject to. I think that we should all be able to own whatever kind of firearm we want, regardless of when it was made, and until the average Joe has access to it, the government shouldn't have it.

That being said, I do feel like the laws are kind of slanted against servicemen returning overseas. If it was up to me, they would be able to bring back whatever they wanted souvenir wise, be it a pen, a picture, or an AK-47. I can understand the frustration. The State of Washington has determined that I am responsible enough to teach small children how to swim, and make sure countless other people don't drown, but I'm not responsible enough to access THR at work. Or how about this: Acording to the National Registry of EMTs, I am responsible and competent enough to be the guy in the back of an ambulance making sure you keep breathing on the way to the hospital, but acording to the local hardware store, I'm not old enough to buy .22 ammo.

Rant over. I guess my point is, its not just your buddy that is being restricted, its all of us. Oh, and tell him thanks from me.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

d2wing
March 9, 2011, 08:09 PM
I have a military ID, most posts have a sign telling you that no firearms are allowed on base. It irks me some as I like to stay at Military campgrounds when I travel.

oneounceload
March 9, 2011, 08:32 PM
I agree, the government should be subject to the same laws that we the citizenry are subject to. I think that we should all be able to own whatever kind of firearm we want, regardless of when it was made, and until the average Joe has access to it, the government shouldn't have it.

wow......how many F-15's should be allowed in the general aviation section of your local airpark?????

and let's not forget nuclear weapons.......:barf:

J_McLeod
March 9, 2011, 08:36 PM
It would make sense to me that that military would want to promote private firearm ownership, because then you have servicemembers training on their own time with their own money, and that makes a better force. Almost all bases have ranges for private weapons, many sell guns and ammo (which are usually way overpriced) but then they make it so hard to use any of it.

kingpin008
March 9, 2011, 09:09 PM
wow......how many F-15's should be allowed in the general aviation section of your local airpark?????

As many as can safely operate there, just like the other planes. What's your point?

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 09:41 PM
wow......how many F-15's should be allowed in the general aviation section of your local airpark?????

and let's not forget nuclear weapons.......

This ALWAYS comes up.

Do you realize what an F-15 costs? Only a hand full of individuals on Earth could afford such an expensive toy and most billionairs have better things to spend their money on.

As for nuclear weapons, have you priced plutoniam lately? Only a handfull of countries can afford them. But suppose you were as rich as Bill Gates and could afford one. Do you have a private military base guarded by a private army and a back yard as big as Nevada to store it in? Of course not. An individual having "the bomb" would pose a risk to his neighbors the same way keeping a bengal tiger in your back yard or a 500 gallon drum of gasoline in your appartment would. Explosives pose a danger to others unless stored securely and NO individual has the capacity to safely store a nuclear weapon, even if he could afford it.

Bubba613
March 9, 2011, 10:07 PM
I'll take a bit of anarchy over the police state we have going right now.
If you think we have a police state you are either woefully ill-informed or just blowing smoke. If it's so bad I am sure Venezuala would love to have you come.

The Fifth Amendment clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Gun laws do exactly that, they deprive you of your Second Amendment liberties, the ONE thing you are guaranteed the right to “keep and bear” by the Constitution until you prove yourself innocent of the POTENTIAL for future crime. Or in some cases like in Illinois not at all.
Just when I think a thread is going to get tedious I come across a morsel like this. You couldn't make this up.

mljdeckard
March 9, 2011, 10:14 PM
I can easily top this one. Before I turned 21, I was the assistant armorer for the HHC of an armor battalion. I had unaccompanied access to over 300 M-16s, 87 M-9s, twenty assorted crew-serveds, even a handful of M-3s. A buddy of mine was selling his privately-owned T-92, and I paid him cash for it, but I wasn't allowed to put it on my orders and ship it home because I was not yet 21. We had to meet up later in the states to do the transfer. I had turned 21 by then.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 10:31 PM
Suppose you had to pay a special tax, submit fingerprints and wait for months for approval by the federal government and the local police before you could buy a registered and serial numbered Bible for fifteen or twenty times its original cost? would that be an infringement on your freedom of religion?

Bubba613
March 9, 2011, 10:33 PM
Suppose you had to pay a special tax, submit fingerprints and wait for months for approval by the federal government and the local police before you could buy a registered and serial numbered Bible for fifteen or twenty times its original cost? would that be an infringement on your freedom of religion?

No, not necessarily.

xcgates
March 9, 2011, 10:43 PM
^I hope you are being sarcastic, and my meter is busted all up, but please explain?

Bubba613
March 9, 2011, 10:57 PM
OK yeah it would be an infringement. But it wouldn't necessarily be an unwarranted infringement.
Let's say your religion required human sacrifice. I dont think anyone would go for that. So society is going to infringe on that religion.
There are no rights that do not come with limitations. Scalia wrote as much himself.

CZguy
March 9, 2011, 11:05 PM
Do you realize what an F-15 costs?

About 38 million for a used C model. But what really keeps me from getting one is the 2,000 gallons of JP-8 is burns every hour.

And if you think .380 ammo is getting high in cost.........think what 640 rounds of 20MM costs.

Vyacheslav
March 9, 2011, 11:13 PM
As many as can safely operate there, just like the other planes. What's your point?

good reply, his point is to stir things up

kingpin008
March 9, 2011, 11:18 PM
Suppose you had to pay a special tax, submit fingerprints and wait for months for approval by the federal government and the local police before you could buy a registered and serial numbered Bible for fifteen or twenty times its original cost? would that be an infringement on your freedom of religion?

It would be an infringement, but I don't need a bible to practice Christianity. Likewise, I don't need an M16 to be able to defend my home, family, or country.

Owen Sparks
March 9, 2011, 11:33 PM
Let's say your religion required human sacrifice. I dont think anyone would go for that. So society is going to infringe on that religion.
There are no rights that do not come with limitations. Scalia wrote as much himself.

No right can be had at the expense of someone else. Unsecured storage of high explosives in a populated area puts other people in harms way, just like keeping a tiger as a pet in your back yard would. what we are talking about here is modern small arms not patriot missles. A few magazines full of of .223 are not going to blow up and level the town if mishandled.

Bubba613
March 10, 2011, 05:50 AM
Good.
Putting guns in the hands of felons, etc puts the public at risk. Ergo there is a restriction on the right.
Thanks for justifying restrictions on rights, the 2A is no exception.

alsaqr
March 10, 2011, 07:57 AM
i spent a career in the US Army: i hold a top secret security clearance. Yep, i cannot legally own a full auto weapon unless it's registered: That's as it should be. There should be no exceptions for anyone because of their job or status in life.

Yep, it's a big hassle and IMO it is unconstitutional.

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2011, 10:52 AM
Putting guns in the hands of felons, etc puts the public at risk. Ergo there is a restriction on the right.

As well there should be. Convicted fellons have PROVEN themselves dangerous. You and I have not. Why should we be treated like criminals for possessing a tool that has the potential for criminal misuse? Crime is an ACTION not a thing. Guns are things and having a thing is not the same as misusing it in a crime. Simply having a holstered pistol does not harm or threaten anybody.

kingpin008
March 10, 2011, 11:47 AM
Convicted felons have PROVEN themselves dangerous.

My uncle is a felon. He was convicted of embezzlement in the early 80's and did prison time for it. He never laid a finger on another person - merely used creative accounting to pad his pockets. Is he dangerous? Should he be denied the right to own a gun?

NavyLCDR
March 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
My uncle is a felon. He was convicted of embezzlement in the early 80's and did prison time for it. He never laid a finger on another person - merely used creative accounting to pad his pockets. Is he dangerous? Should he be denied the right to own a gun?

Short answer, no, he should not be denied to own or carry a gun.

Long answer, if convicted felons are such dangerous people, than why allow them to walk the streets in freedom? If the government feels a person is safe enough to allow them to walk the streets in freedom, then they should be allowed to exercise the right to protect themselves from the dangerous criminals.

kingpin008
March 10, 2011, 12:47 PM
Long answer, if convicted felons are such dangerous people, than why allow them to walk the streets in freedom? If the government feels a person is safe enough to allow them to walk the streets in freedom, then they should be allowed to exercise the right to protect themselves from the dangerous criminals.

Exactly. Making the statement that "felons should be denied gun ownership" is foolish and needlessly broad. Prohibiting ALL felons from gun ownership accomplishes the same thing that gun laws in general does - restricts the rights of all because of the behavior of a few.

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2011, 12:53 PM
I said: Convicted felons have PROVEN themselves dangerous.

Let me revise that. Convicted VIOLENT felons have proven themselves dangerous.

CZguy
March 10, 2011, 12:56 PM
Exactly. Making the statement that "felons should be denied gun ownership" is foolish and needlessly broad. Prohibiting ALL felons from gun ownership accomplishes the same thing that gun laws in general does - restricts the rights of all because of the behavior of a few.


I would even speculate that convicted felons would mirror the actions of society at large. The honest felons wouldn't have a gun because it was against the law, but a dishonest career criminal felon, would just do as he pleased.

Bubba613
March 10, 2011, 01:21 PM
The honest felons

Isn't that an oxymoron?

d2wing
March 10, 2011, 01:21 PM
Felons have forfeited specific rights in addition to gun rights like the right to vote. Our forefathers did not want people of low character enjoying full citizenship. Violence was not the issue.

kingpin008
March 10, 2011, 01:46 PM
Let me revise that. Convicted VIOLENT felons have proven themselves dangerous.

As has been pointed out previously, if they're so violent why are they allowed to leave prison? Surely anyone dangerous enough to be prohibited from owning a gun is intelligent enough to use any number of other items in equally violent ways should they choose to do so. Why the specific prohibition on firearms? Why not knife prohibitions, or car prohibitions, or empty beer bottle prohibitions?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Not necessarily. I would have worded it "honest ex-felons". It can be suprisingly easy to run afoul of the law. Not everyone continues to think and act like a criminal after they've served their sentence.

dmancornell
March 10, 2011, 02:30 PM
If you think we have a police state you are either woefully ill-informed or just blowing smoke. If it's so bad I am sure Venezuala would love to have you come.

Standard strawman response regarding criticism on the sad state of domestic affairs is to point to some other country and say, look it's even worse over there. At least Chavez doesn't lie about his desire to turn Venezuela into his personal playground, but the sheeple in the US still sing about the "land of the free" and don't realize it's become a sick joke.

We live in a land of militarized "police" serving no-knock warrants at 4am, civil forfeiture, the "PATRIOT" Act, and a Supreme Court that has given government unlimited power to regulate economic activity. Any two-bit thug working for the state can buy a brand new machine gun with taxpayer money while the taxpayers themselves have to make do with a government limited supply.

If that's not a police state, what is?

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2011, 02:35 PM
Forget convicted violent felons for a minute. Regular law abiding gun owners are lumped in with the worst potential criminals by the current collectivist gun laws and treated accordingly.

The government does not see you as an individual but as part of a group, (gun owners) and any time you are seen as a member of a group you are seen as no better than the least member of that group. The law sees you as no more competent than at the least common denominator. The problem with collectivism is that it punishes the innocent majority along with those few who actually harm others. Collectivism always results in large numbers of people being convicted of victimless crime. Most gun owners don’t rob banks, yet if you get caught with a non approved type of firearm federal agents will haul you off to prison for ten years as if you were John Dillinger, even though you never harmed or threatened anyone. This is fundamentally no different than another form of collectivism, racism, where all the members of an ethnic group are held responsible for the bad actions of a few.

Sam1911
March 10, 2011, 02:47 PM
Any two-bit thug working for the state can buy a brand new machine gun with taxpayer money

Let's not let the hyperbole get too deep in here. This doesn't even begin to reflect how equipment procurement works or the process for transferring NFA weapons to government agencies. When we exaggerate and are imprecise (or incorrect) with our representations it ruins the message we're trying to get accross.

We seem to be wandering from the original discussion.

dmancornell
March 10, 2011, 02:54 PM
Let's not let the hyperbole get too deep in here. This doesn't even begin to reflect how equipment procurement works or the process for transferring NFA weapons to government agencies.

The procurement details are irrelevant. The fact is the state has restricted civilian access to full-auto firearms because the state seeks control over its subjects above all else. The fact that they do it with our money is just an added insult.

The state control truism is the root cause of OP's original observation. A soldier works for the state and therefore is given all the tools needed to assert control. When the soldier becomes a civilian, he reverts to a mere subject and will be disarmed accordingly. The government never trusted the soldier, he's just a paid employee, as illustrated by previous posts regarding gun policies of active soldiers on base.

Sam1911
March 10, 2011, 03:03 PM
The fact is the state has restricted civilian access to full-auto firearms because the state seeks control over its subjects above all else.
Is that why the NFA was passed 77 years ago? Or why Sen. Hughes and Rangel weaseled the Hughes Amendment in back in '86? Doesn't seem much like "the state" at work as a few senators influenced by their own whims, interests, and re-election hopes (often driven by the desires of "the public" at that time).

I'm coming to view many of these issues as less conspiratorial (The STATE is doing X) and more ignorant and self-serving on the parts of certain legislators.

The fact that they do it with our money is just an added insult.Does what with our money? Enforce the law or buy guns for police officers and soldiers?

A soldier works for the state and therefore is given all the tools needed to assert control.Soldiers assert control? Surely you know that is a gross overstatement of how things work here in the US? Only the Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus, but they don't seem to be kicking down many doors these days.

dmancornell
March 10, 2011, 04:32 PM
Is that why the NFA was passed 77 years ago? Or why Sen. Hughes and Rangel weaseled the Hughes Amendment in back in '86? Doesn't seem much like "the state" at work as a few senators influenced by their own whims, interests, and re-election hopes (often driven by the desires of "the public" at that time).

If NFA '33 and the Hughes Amendment were merely the unconstitutional whims of a few politicians, why have they been affirmed at all levels of the judiciary? Doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy when every "check and balance" failed because the state is staffed by people who believe in the omnipotence of the state.

Does what with our money? Enforce the law or buy guns for police officers and soldiers?

The state uses our money to enforce the law, which today is nothing than the construct which enforces state hegemony. Look at the current gun laws and try to argue that they are not completely arbitrary rules designed to make money and assert control over civilians.

Soldiers assert control? Surely you know that is a gross overstatement of how things work here in the US? Only the Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus, but they don't seem to be kicking down many doors these days.

Soldiers assert control overseas, the various "law enforcement agencies" do it domestically. Posse Comitatus is irrelevant to OP's observation, he could have made the exact same point if his friend had been a DEA agent toting a M16, but having to go back to a semi AR-15 the day he retires.

DammitBoy
March 10, 2011, 04:39 PM
What the Founding Fathers used their guns for is irrelevant. The Constitution is a political document, and the Second Amendment specifically preserves the citizens' rights to the means of self-defense and community defense. The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, skeet shooting, or "fun" in general, and it protects collecting and target shooting (arguably) only as adjuncts to its basic purpose, which is personal and collective defense.

"Recreational use" or "sporting purpose" are red herrings concocted by anti-gunners as a means of dividing gun owners. The idea is to make hunting and other shooting sports seem more "socially acceptable" while making self-defense and other serious uses more "socially unacceptable." People concerned about Second Amendment rights should fight tooth and nail against the whole "sporting purpose" concept.

I agree in principle that the citizenry should be as well-armed as the government (assuming that, even in a democracy, the "government" is somehow apart from the "citizenry"). Realistically, though, the government is always going to have the financial and organizational resources to go the citizenry one better.

You are 100% correct.

recreational and sporting use laws are unconstitutional.

AlexanderA
March 10, 2011, 05:18 PM
recreational and sporting use laws are unconstitutional.

I drove past the NRA headquarters building (in Fairfax, Va.) today, and right on the side of the building, visible from I-66, in big letters, was the logo, "NRA Sports."

It seems that the premier gun-rights organization is buying into the distinction between "sporting" and "non-sporting" uses. Perhaps they've focus-grouped their terminology and found that the public supports hunting and clay pigeons -- not so much the use of guns for self-defense. And full-auto weapons? I doubt that even 10% of the public would approve of those.

So, the serious supporters of the Second Amendment have to piggyback their activism on the more popular (i.e., "sporting") uses of guns.

But judges are not like politicians. Judges (hopefully) can actually read the Constitution.

Toforo
March 10, 2011, 05:32 PM
:uhoh:

What was the question again??

:confused:

kilo729
March 10, 2011, 07:13 PM
What makes a soldier so special that he should be able to own a full auto weapon while I may not?

wsm
March 10, 2011, 07:40 PM
Why all the fuss? No one in the civilian world has any need for a full auto weapon of any kind. What are you going to do with it? I know a millionaire that has several full auto weapons. Even with all his money, he doesn't feel that he can afford to shoot them very much. I don't care what Uncle Ted says. Full auto weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. I"m a veteran of 20 years and carried weapons of all types, but I see no need for me to own a full auto weapon. Seems that OP would like his buddy to be able to bring his service weapon home with him. Can't be done!

xcgates
March 10, 2011, 07:43 PM
Kilo, that was not the point, the op was trying to make the point that while a given soldier may use a fully auto gun day in, day out, when he returns to this country, he is subject to some very bizzare laws. The same laws that everyone is subject to.

As in, those laws should be changed. Not: the previously mentioned soldier should be above the law.

dmancornell
March 10, 2011, 07:44 PM
No one in the civilian world has any need for a full auto weapon of any kind.

Since when was necessity a precondition for asserting Constitutional rights?

dogtown tom
March 10, 2011, 07:59 PM
When quoting another post PLEASE include the members username.

Just posting a "quote" without attribution is lazy.

wsm
March 10, 2011, 08:03 PM
I did not say necessity. I said that no one need one. Check it out, there is a difference.

Tim the student
March 10, 2011, 08:04 PM
I'm fine with soldiers getting no special treatment.

No one in the civilian world has any need for a full auto weapon of any kind.

IMO, arguing about "need" is a very anti thing to do. I really don't "need" lots of gun related things - but need isn't in the equation from my end. I guess need is in your equation though.

but I see no need for me to own a full auto weapon

So don't. Non-problem solved.

ETA: Added "WSM" for Dogtown Tom.

Toforo
March 10, 2011, 08:29 PM
dogtown tom (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=24565)
Member
Join Date: January 14, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,315
says:
When quoting another post PLEASE include the members username.

Just posting a "quote" without attribution is lazy

He's right.

:)

CapnMac
March 10, 2011, 09:02 PM
Let's say your religion required human sacrifice. I dont think anyone would go for that. So society is going to infringe on that religion.
There are no rights that do not come with limitations. Scalia wrote as much himself.

This gets stirred up a bit, and it muddies the water for missing an important point.

Suppose someone set up a 1st Church of Theft. Constitutionally, we cannot bar the religion practice; but, we'd be perfectly capable of restricting the property-loss aspects thereof. Ditto ritual mutilation or sacrifice--the religion is not what is restricted, only the criminal acts committed.

Which is what makes 2 amendment issues quite so thorny--there is a presumption, in our 20,000 "gun laws," that every aspect of RKBA is criminal. Which certainly seems to also violate the 4th amendment, too. After all, there are no presumptions that certain periodicals are suborning criminality; that some religions are inherently criminal. The presumption of mens rea is astounding.

And, that is what we in the the community have to address somehow.

Now, as to who and what ought be owned, I always seem to fall back up the words of Tench Coxe:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Amen (emphasis added)

DammitBoy
March 10, 2011, 09:46 PM
No one in the civilian world has any need for a full auto weapon of any kind.

I see no need for me to own a full auto weapon.


Where does the 2nd amendment mention your notion of needs?

Mags
March 10, 2011, 09:50 PM
So did your bud, actually try to apply and have his ATF forms rejected or something? Or is this rant just not based on facts?

GRIZ22
March 10, 2011, 10:45 PM
My uncle is a felon. He was convicted of embezzlement in the early 80's and did prison time for it. He never laid a finger on another person - merely used creative accounting to pad his pockets. Is he dangerous? Should he be denied the right to own a gun?


Maybe. I used to agree with you on this point but things change. I know of a guy who embezzled millions from people in a Ponzi scheme. He destroyed many peoples lives by stealing all their money. There were people who gave this guy their life savings. Money they were planning to use to retire. One of his victims I know of had to go back to work (at age 70), sell his nice house and car and move into a trailer and drives an old clunker now. He's going to be lucky to get 5% of his money back because the state takes their fine first and then all the bankruptcy lawyers and accountants collect their fees. This guy is paying for the rest of his life. The embezzler? He got 3 years and is out now. He should be denied any right or privelege possible in my book.

goon
March 10, 2011, 11:08 PM
Please disregard...

goon
March 10, 2011, 11:14 PM
Why all the fuss? No one in the civilian world has any need for a full auto weapon of any kind. What are you going to do with it? I know a millionaire that has several full auto weapons. Even with all his money, he doesn't feel that he can afford to shoot them very much. I don't care what Uncle Ted says. Full auto weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. I"m a veteran of 20 years and carried weapons of all types, but I see no need for me to own a full auto weapon. Seems that OP would like his buddy to be able to bring his service weapon home with him. Can't be done!


The Constitution doesn't say anything about "need".
Even with no Second Amendment at all, there is no power delegated to the government (state or federal) stipulating their control over civilian arms ownership.
The problem is that people think the only rights they have are those enumerated by the Constitution or the BOR when in fact, they have ALL THE RIGHTS that weren't specifically put under the control of state or federal governments.

Bubba613
March 11, 2011, 08:07 AM
Which is what makes 2 amendment issues quite so thorny--there is a presumption, in our 20,000 "gun laws," that every aspect of RKBA is criminal. Which certainly seems to also violate the 4th amendment, too. After all, there are no presumptions that certain periodicals are suborning criminality; that some religions are inherently criminal. The presumption of mens rea is astounding.

I am pretty familiar with many laws and regulations. Where is there a presumption that "every aspect of RKBA" is criminal?

dmancornell
March 11, 2011, 04:29 PM
I did not say necessity. I said that no one need one. Check it out, there is a difference.

Your opinion that no one has a "need" for an automatic weapon is irrelevant from a Constitutional point of view because those rights are not granted based on necessity, they are natural rights.

So in the Constitutional context, "need" and "necessity" have the same significance, i.e. neither should ever been mentioned in any law regarding RBKA. Which of course makes your argument about needs completely pointless other than as a statist excuse to violate the 2nd amendment.

CoRoMo
March 11, 2011, 04:32 PM
When quoting another post PLEASE include the members username.

Just posting a "quote" without attribution is lazy.
I agree.

DammitBoy
March 11, 2011, 04:32 PM
I am pretty familiar with many laws and regulations. Where is there a presumption that "every aspect of RKBA" is criminal?

Because every law regarding the RKBA supposes that, since you own a gun, you might at some point in the future do something bad with it.

i.e. ~ You don't 'need' high capacity magazines, because you might go on a shooting spree sometime in the future.

---

edit: lol @ CoRoMo - dude, you owe me a keyboard!

Bubba613
March 11, 2011, 05:42 PM
Uh, no.
ANd there is no law against high cap mags. Not where I live, anyway.
Maybe living in CA or NJ or wherever is prima facie evidence for being criminally inclined?

DammitBoy
March 11, 2011, 10:36 PM
You are aware there is a bill pending regarding high capacity magazines since the shooting of a congresswoman, right?

How about restrictions on carrying a firearm? We want to make sure you are not carrying, because you might get angry and shoot people.

Come on, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for ya. :cool:

CZguy
March 11, 2011, 11:25 PM
kilo729,

What makes a soldier so special that he should be able to own a full auto weapon while I may not?




Let me try to shed some light on this. I served for thirty years and was only special to my Mom, and my dog. I did not own a full auto, I was issued one. The US government maintained full ownership. Civilians (in my state) can easily own fully automatic firearms. You just need to have enough money to buy one and pay the tax stamp.

oldfool
March 12, 2011, 02:11 AM
serving in your country's military is an honorable duty, not a privilege
privilege is the province of royalty, not citizens; lawful rights are the province of citizens
those who voluntarily serve deserve our respect and gratitude for protecting our constitution (and more than they usually get), but not exemptions from the laws they serve to protect; not even if we disagree with some of those laws

PS
need love, like the man said, bet on your Mom and your dog

wsm
March 12, 2011, 02:30 AM
Dman, I only stated very clearly that it is my opinion that I don't have any need to, own or use, a full automatic weapon. The Constitution is very clear as to what rights we all have. If you want a machine gun and can afford the tax stamp and the ammo, go for it. I spent 20 years in the military, used almost all the small arms the US government owns, and was quite good with all of them. But, I never did then, nor do I now, feel that I, as a private citizen, NEED a fully automatic weapon. Now that, my fellow gun owners, has absolutely nothing to do with my constitutional rights. Rant over!

Owen Sparks
March 12, 2011, 12:04 PM
Affording the tax stamp is the least of the problem. It is affording the gun that is the problem as prices have skyrocketed since 1986 when no more new full autos could be registered. A typical registered and transferable military surplus M-16 now costs a civilian fifteen times what a nearly identical semi-auto version cost new. This effectivly makes it impossible for 99%+ of the population to ever own one.

gdcpony
March 12, 2011, 12:44 PM
As a vet I love to see myself as special. I won't lie. There are many out there who do nothing to contribute to our country and yes I will admit I like to think I am better than them. HOWEVER, most pay their taxes (my salary), work for a living, and try to do their best to live for both their happiness and to not be drain on society. Those people are my equal, serving in a way too.

As far as getting "privileges" for my service? I do get more than I feel I deserve. Preference towards some jobs on the civilian jobs, discounts from many companies, and thanks from people who I have never met. While I won't deny I will be using them- I need a job after all and saving money is always good-, I know they are just privileges granted by those willing and not something I should have a legal right to.

Firearms on a military base are severely restricted just to let you all know. Yeah, I was blessed with some backdoor deals as a "motivated" Marine that made things a little easier for me (mostly because the armorers got sick of being bugged having to sign out my personal weapons almost daily). But even then when, where, and why I pocessed them was scrutinized fully. My CO had to sign off on it, the armory "officially" held them (married Marines had housing and can store them there), every weapon including a knife had to be registered, and they had to be subject to a check at any time. So do not for one minute think we can just run amuck with auto weapons we keep under our beds or some crap. I remember well how many times I was pulled in to have my car searched and having to show full registration for each and every of my weapons just because I got picked that day.

Do I think I NEED a full auto? No. Do I think they should be as unrestricted as other firearms? No. Do I believe they should never be allowed? No.

There just some thoughts on this subject.

DammitBoy
March 12, 2011, 01:31 PM
Affording the tax stamp is the least of the problem. It is affording the gun that is the problem as prices have skyrocketed since 1986 when no more new full autos could be registered. A typical registered and transferable military surplus M-16 now costs a civilian fifteen times what a nearly identical semi-auto version cost new. This effectivly makes it impossible for 99%+ of the population to ever own one.

Agreed. Any 'law' that makes it nearly impossible for anyone but the rich and powerful access to a type of firearm is ludicrous and an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

Why don't we make religion and free speech unaffordable for the average joe?

kilo729
March 12, 2011, 07:31 PM
As a vet I love to see myself as special. I won't lie. There are many out there who do nothing to contribute to our country and yes I will admit I like to think I am better than them.

Wow.

Bubba613
March 12, 2011, 08:15 PM
You are aware there is a bill pending regarding high capacity magazines since the shooting of a congresswoman, right?

How about restrictions on carrying a firearm? We want to make sure you are not carrying, because you might get angry and shoot people.

Come on, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for ya.

And you are aware that the very same bill has been introduced in every Congress that Carolyn McCarthy is part of, right?

Would you say that speed limits are there because the gov't wants to make sure you don't go psycho and run off the road? Or are they a matter of public safety? Like a lot of other legislation.

dmancornell
March 12, 2011, 09:44 PM
As a vet I love to see myself as special. I won't lie.

Serving the state makes you special in the same way getting scammed makes you special, i.e. it doesn't.

xcgates
March 12, 2011, 09:49 PM
Ahem, serving the constitution, NOT the state.

And as a matter of fact, it does. The same way a doctor is special, or any other specialization or job makes you special. You know how to do some things that others that don't have the training to do, or experience other people won't. I do not know how to do a doctor's job, how to build a house, design a car, run plumbing, etc. Just depends on what you define 'special' as.

dmancornell
March 12, 2011, 10:13 PM
Ahem, serving the constitution, NOT the state.

The same way our esteemed politicians uphold the Constitution?

By that, I meant pissing all over the Constitution.

Sam1911
March 12, 2011, 10:24 PM
All right, this is going far too far. Every citizen owes a debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women, regardless of how they feel about politicians.

I think our OP's question has been answered sufficiently and we've wandered far enough to have just about lost sight of the high road.

If you enjoyed reading about "Professional soldier forbidden full auto." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!