Professional soldier forbidden full auto.

Owen Sparks · Mar 9, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

kingpin008 said:
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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

I said:

Convicted felons have PROVEN themselves dangerous.

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

CZguy · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

The honest felons

Isn't that an oxymoron?

d2wing · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

AlexanderA said:
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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

What was the question again??

kilo729 · Mar 10, 2011

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

wsm · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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 · Mar 10, 2011

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?

Professional soldier forbidden full auto.

member

member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads