xd9fan
Member
I'm in this camp....I think....
Gingrich Against Private MG Ownership
- Thread starter Bubbles
- Start date
- Status
I'm in this camp....I think....
JKLINSTEIN - "Does anyone here know anyone who owns a 50 caliber machine gun? "
Yes, I do know several people who own .50 Browning Machine Guns.
Idaho is a Class III State, and there is a large, very active automatic weapons collectors association here. I've attended several of their shoots, and it is not at all unusual for there to be two or three guys there shooting their .50 Browning Machine Guns, along with 1919A1 BMG .30s, both air cooled and water cooled ... having a lot of fun, doing no harm to anyone.
Oddly enough, over these many years, with all the various automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens here, not one, has gone out on a "killing spree" with his "machine gun."
Gingrich is a two faced back stabber, anyway. I would never support him.
L.W.
Yes, I do know several people who own .50 Browning Machine Guns.
Idaho is a Class III State, and there is a large, very active automatic weapons collectors association here. I've attended several of their shoots, and it is not at all unusual for there to be two or three guys there shooting their .50 Browning Machine Guns, along with 1919A1 BMG .30s, both air cooled and water cooled ... having a lot of fun, doing no harm to anyone.
Oddly enough, over these many years, with all the various automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens here, not one, has gone out on a "killing spree" with his "machine gun."
Gingrich is a two faced back stabber, anyway. I would never support him.
L.W.
samtechlan
Member
If you want the pure 100% pro 2nd A position you have to go with Ron Paul, end of story. Every other politician's position is a compromise of some sort.
Nobody anywhere in the US has been convicted of a crime with any legal NFA weapon, including M2HB's. Having a neighbor with a .50 is litteraly safer than having a neighbor with a dog. If you're gonna run your mouth, its a good idea to know what you're talking about.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Sorry, that is incorrect.
A police officer was convicted of murder while off duty using his privately owned Ingram MAC-10.
He's the only one I believe.
bluto
Member
Ya' know, I have a lot more faith in Newt and his track record than I do in the rabid Stalinists and lying Democrats that are hell bent on disarming us as fast as they can. Chuck Schumer's words are enough of an endorsment for me to keep the faith.
http://www.rkba.org/nra/schumer.crime-subcommittee.5apr95
[
Newt is much stronger on the issues. Maybe it's a good perspective to keep in mind when we jump all over people who are sympathetic to our rights just because they don't go as far as we want them to - or at least don't say so in public.
Or, we could all stay home again at the next election and let Hillary and Chuck run the show because we want to teach Newt a lesson.
http://www.rkba.org/nra/schumer.crime-subcommittee.5apr95
[
I have a lot of problems with G dubya'. But the AWB sunset under him and lots of states (my own Kali excepted) have expanded their CCW laws. He's far, far from my ideal 2A representative. But he's a 1000 times more effective than Ron Paul as an unelectable 3rd party candidate. Given the alternative (Algore) I consider him a victory for gun rights advocates.
Newt is much stronger on the issues. Maybe it's a good perspective to keep in mind when we jump all over people who are sympathetic to our rights just because they don't go as far as we want them to - or at least don't say so in public.
Or, we could all stay home again at the next election and let Hillary and Chuck run the show because we want to teach Newt a lesson.
Dave Markowitz
Member
The Framers contemplated private ownership of fully armed ships. As in armed with artillery. Hence the power granted in the Constitution to Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal.
The idea that the Framers wouldn't have thought that the Second Amendment protects the private possession of infantry weapons like Ma Deuce is facile.
The idea that the Framers wouldn't have thought that the Second Amendment protects the private possession of infantry weapons like Ma Deuce is facile.
Kaylee
Member
honestly, I rather suspect it's a moot point. He's got so many people who hate his guts that the odds of him getting the nomination are pretty small, I think.
Best RKBA comment I ever heard from a politician was attributed to Pat Buchanan as I recall - "well if you have to back a truck up to it in order to move it, then maybe it oughta be registered."
Best RKBA comment I ever heard from a politician was attributed to Pat Buchanan as I recall - "well if you have to back a truck up to it in order to move it, then maybe it oughta be registered."
bogie
Member
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, for the benefit of...
(according to some folks, I really shouldn't elaborate as to the end of that sentence...)
If you vote against the guy who is 90% for what you believe, and for the guy who is 90% against what you believe, don't get all surprised when the guy who is 90% against you gets elected.
Campers, we have folks on this _gun_ web site who don't like the 2nd amendment. They just LOVE it when we vote against generally pro-2nd candidates _who have a chance_, so that their candidates, who are VERY anti-2nd, have a better chance of getting elected.
(according to some folks, I really shouldn't elaborate as to the end of that sentence...)
If you vote against the guy who is 90% for what you believe, and for the guy who is 90% against what you believe, don't get all surprised when the guy who is 90% against you gets elected.
Campers, we have folks on this _gun_ web site who don't like the 2nd amendment. They just LOVE it when we vote against generally pro-2nd candidates _who have a chance_, so that their candidates, who are VERY anti-2nd, have a better chance of getting elected.
Molon Labe
Member
I think every human is free to own any type of weapon he/she so desires. Short of a nuclear weapon.
So there. That's my line.
jklinstein
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 75
Honors Daddy:
Honorsdaddy, I understand the principle you're arguing from. It's a position that is not politically even a remote possibility.
Better question is, why do you feel a need to tell others what to do?
I voiced an opinion, and you disagree. Instead of responding in a civil manner, you resort to accusations. I didn't tell anyone what they could or could not do, but you're treading down that path with heavy handedness.Bottom line? The number of people who could afford to own a nuke is so small (i.e. Bill Gates and thats about it) as to be irrelevant. Additionally, no one is obligated to SELL one to you, and since all the fissionable material is currently owned by the US government, where, pray tell, are you to obtain it?
If you've got enough money, you can buy both the fissionable material and the plans for how to put it together. Would it be "easy", of course not.As pointed out to jklinstein, the numbers of people who can afford the larger toys makes ownership of them rather self-regulating.
Nonsense. Is Bin Laden "self-regulated"? Is there any crime that the superwealthy are immume from committing?Honorsdaddy, I understand the principle you're arguing from. It's a position that is not politically even a remote possibility.
mountainclmbr
Member
I would trust most of my neighbors that I ever had in my entire life more than I trust most politicians I have ever known in my life. Denying all politicians their 2A rights makes the most sense to me. Including Newt. They are our employees after all, and prohibiting employees from having guns has been discussed here ad nauseum.
HonorsDaddy
Member
jklinstein
You may feel you are merely voicing an opinion - i feel you are advocating taking away my rights.
As far as the necessary material, no you cannot buy it with enough money - at least not legally. All of it in the US is owned and controlled by the US government, and they are not obligated to sell it to you - and the government IS within its authority to restrict importation of it.
So, in other words, private ownership of nukes is moot anyway. There is no legal way for you to GET one short of mining and refining the stuff all at your own expense, and somehow I'm thinking you wouldnt get a permit to build a breeder reactor.
I fail to see how ownership of ANY weapon - mind you i just said ownership - infringes upon anyone elses rights, and therefore fail to see what actual crime could be committed.
Dont know of anyone who owns warships, but I'm reasonably certain that is simply because private ownership is cost-prohibitive. Besides, where the hell are you going to park a destroyer for example? Where are you going to find the people to crew it?
Now they dont own nukes, but as i said, im not sure it is actually illegal TO own one. I do know there is no legal way to obtain the critical mass which would actually make it a nuke.
You may feel it is heavy handed, but i would disagree. By supporting any restriction upon weapons ownership, you play into the hands of those who wish to end all private ownership. Yes, it IS telling people what to do - and i take serious offense at that.
You may feel you are merely voicing an opinion - i feel you are advocating taking away my rights.
The plans to put it together are freely available on this wonderful thing we call the Internet. As i remember, engineering students at many universities used to assemble nukes (minus the fissionable material) as part of projects. Making them really isnt that difficult. It IS 60+ year old technology after all.
As far as the necessary material, no you cannot buy it with enough money - at least not legally. All of it in the US is owned and controlled by the US government, and they are not obligated to sell it to you - and the government IS within its authority to restrict importation of it.
So, in other words, private ownership of nukes is moot anyway. There is no legal way for you to GET one short of mining and refining the stuff all at your own expense, and somehow I'm thinking you wouldnt get a permit to build a breeder reactor.
Irrelevant. He isnt a US citizen, and we do not control the world.
What crime are we discussing? Ownership of nuclear weapons? I am not even sure that is illegal.
I fail to see how ownership of ANY weapon - mind you i just said ownership - infringes upon anyone elses rights, and therefore fail to see what actual crime could be committed.
Sorry - but yes it IS a possibility, and is in fact a reality. Private citizens currently own all manner of heavy duty hardware. Legally. Tanks, artillery, full auto weapons, rocket and grenade launchers, a few even own military aircraft.
Dont know of anyone who owns warships, but I'm reasonably certain that is simply because private ownership is cost-prohibitive. Besides, where the hell are you going to park a destroyer for example? Where are you going to find the people to crew it?
Now they dont own nukes, but as i said, im not sure it is actually illegal TO own one. I do know there is no legal way to obtain the critical mass which would actually make it a nuke.
bluto
Member
Our right to keep and bear arms is one based on self-defense to maintain our freedom, protect our lives and our property. It does not give us the right to wage war or to attack people who aren't attacking you. [See what happens if you shoot at an intruder and hit an innocent bystander!]
I'd say that to fulfill that right the tools we choose ought to allow us to discriminate between the threat and the innocent. Pistols, rifles, knives and maybe machine guns allow for discreet usage against an attacker with minimal possibility of collateral damage.
Nuclear weapons, ebola, anthrax, grenades, any HE, tanks, armed military aircraft and other weapons that are indiscriminate just don't fall into that catagory.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
bluto, I'm in sympathy with your view as to "indiscriminate".
However, even in 1792 there were bursting projectiles which could be fired from privately owned cannon. Collateral damage has always been possible.
Our problems with the 2nd Amendment regarding possession and control are similar to those of the 1st Amendment: Did the 1st Amendment ideas extend beyond quill pens and paper? Could the writers have envisioned typewriters and computers; radio and television?
The average person who hasn't given a lot of thought to the multitudes of ramifications of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment can easily be nervous about one's ownership of "serious" weapons of war. Machine guns, grenades, etc. It doesn't necessarily make them anti-gun.
One way of looking at the meaning of the 2nd Amendment--and particularly in light of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights--is that "the people" should have miltary superiority over the central government. How else could abuse of power be prevented?
Art
However, even in 1792 there were bursting projectiles which could be fired from privately owned cannon. Collateral damage has always been possible.
Our problems with the 2nd Amendment regarding possession and control are similar to those of the 1st Amendment: Did the 1st Amendment ideas extend beyond quill pens and paper? Could the writers have envisioned typewriters and computers; radio and television?
The average person who hasn't given a lot of thought to the multitudes of ramifications of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment can easily be nervous about one's ownership of "serious" weapons of war. Machine guns, grenades, etc. It doesn't necessarily make them anti-gun.
One way of looking at the meaning of the 2nd Amendment--and particularly in light of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights--is that "the people" should have miltary superiority over the central government. How else could abuse of power be prevented?
Art
bluto
Member
I hear ya' Art.
In fact, many of the debates at state conventions prefacing the adoption of the Bill of Rights brought up that very point: Theodore Sedgwick, Senator from Massachusetts wasn't as concerned about standing armies as many of his peers: "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" An armed citizenry was presumed necessary to prevent despotism.
So the question remains, where do we draw the line, if any, in weapons ownership by private citizens? Should citizens be allowed to own weapons comparable to those used by the military? I think the approach to the question must be from the perspective of the People in every case. What serves the People's interest vis-a-vis the federal government is what our Constitution is about.
So here's the question: "Should citizens be allowed to own weapons comparable to those owned by the military?"
As I see it, the intent of allowing a government to establish a military in the first place is to keep the citizenry safe from invasion or attack from outside its borders. To do this we provide a fractional resource from our available national manpower in the form of a standing army. Their task is to cope with those comparable or greater forces directed against us from a foreign power. In order to make them effective, we arm them with weapons that greatly multiply their ability (think exponentially) to inflict harm relative to their numbers. We do this somewhat at our own peril because there is always the chance that the army can be used against the citizenry. To minimize the risk we have a highly structured bureaucracy and set of laws to govern the availability and use of those weapons. So the scope of the military's weapons is defined by their need to defend the People. And under all but the most extraordinary circumstances we want to protect the government's ability to administer those laws in order to protect the People.
The primary intent implicit in an armed citizenry is to keep the government from misusing it's authorized power to subjugate the People. To this end we have provided, in the Second Amendment, for a massive but dilute resource (private ownership of guns) set to act against a smaller, more powerful government should the "Evils" become insufferable. (I highly recommend the following link as an exceptional explanation of the Second Amendment as it relates to the subordinate importance of a militia in the right to bear arms)
http://webpages.charter.net/mad_prophet/articles/rkba/other/sr000001.html
I'd say then that the theoretical limit to the scope of weapons that should be available to the People is one that maintains an offsetting threat to tyranny without destabilizing a legal government.
Specifically, this means that arms that approach giving parity to comparable numbers of citizens and military should define the threshold of ownership. When this happens, effective armed insurrection by small independent groups is possible without meeting the broad consensus to action reached under a "Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," implied in the Declaration of Independence.
More simply put, to generate an effective threat to the overthrow of our government it (the government) should have to pis* off a heck'uva' lot of people. One guy with an H-bomb should not be able to declare war against the government because he doesn't like his tax bracket. It should take millions of people who recognize tyranny to band together as a force strong enough to overthrow government. For the safety Of The People you want to restrict the ability to establish and outfit citizens with the capability of becoming their OWN standing army. Because at that point they become as much of a threat to the People as a foreign power or an army without government restriction.
In fact, many of the debates at state conventions prefacing the adoption of the Bill of Rights brought up that very point: Theodore Sedgwick, Senator from Massachusetts wasn't as concerned about standing armies as many of his peers: "if raised, whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" An armed citizenry was presumed necessary to prevent despotism.
So the question remains, where do we draw the line, if any, in weapons ownership by private citizens? Should citizens be allowed to own weapons comparable to those used by the military? I think the approach to the question must be from the perspective of the People in every case. What serves the People's interest vis-a-vis the federal government is what our Constitution is about.
So here's the question: "Should citizens be allowed to own weapons comparable to those owned by the military?"
As I see it, the intent of allowing a government to establish a military in the first place is to keep the citizenry safe from invasion or attack from outside its borders. To do this we provide a fractional resource from our available national manpower in the form of a standing army. Their task is to cope with those comparable or greater forces directed against us from a foreign power. In order to make them effective, we arm them with weapons that greatly multiply their ability (think exponentially) to inflict harm relative to their numbers. We do this somewhat at our own peril because there is always the chance that the army can be used against the citizenry. To minimize the risk we have a highly structured bureaucracy and set of laws to govern the availability and use of those weapons. So the scope of the military's weapons is defined by their need to defend the People. And under all but the most extraordinary circumstances we want to protect the government's ability to administer those laws in order to protect the People.
The primary intent implicit in an armed citizenry is to keep the government from misusing it's authorized power to subjugate the People. To this end we have provided, in the Second Amendment, for a massive but dilute resource (private ownership of guns) set to act against a smaller, more powerful government should the "Evils" become insufferable. (I highly recommend the following link as an exceptional explanation of the Second Amendment as it relates to the subordinate importance of a militia in the right to bear arms)
http://webpages.charter.net/mad_prophet/articles/rkba/other/sr000001.html
I'd say then that the theoretical limit to the scope of weapons that should be available to the People is one that maintains an offsetting threat to tyranny without destabilizing a legal government.
Specifically, this means that arms that approach giving parity to comparable numbers of citizens and military should define the threshold of ownership. When this happens, effective armed insurrection by small independent groups is possible without meeting the broad consensus to action reached under a "Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," implied in the Declaration of Independence.
More simply put, to generate an effective threat to the overthrow of our government it (the government) should have to pis* off a heck'uva' lot of people. One guy with an H-bomb should not be able to declare war against the government because he doesn't like his tax bracket. It should take millions of people who recognize tyranny to band together as a force strong enough to overthrow government. For the safety Of The People you want to restrict the ability to establish and outfit citizens with the capability of becoming their OWN standing army. Because at that point they become as much of a threat to the People as a foreign power or an army without government restriction.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"It should take millions of people who recognize tyranny to band together as a force strong enough to overthrow government. For the safety Of The People you want to restrict the ability to establish and outfit citizens with the capability of becoming their OWN standing army. Because at that point they become as much of a threat to the People as a foreign power or an army without government restriction."
Good thought.
As far as details, just mumbling and guessing, most of any effort to oust an evil regime would take place within the regime's own cities. I rather doubt that tanks, planes and heavy artillery would be all that useful to the regime.
Art
Good thought.
As far as details, just mumbling and guessing, most of any effort to oust an evil regime would take place within the regime's own cities. I rather doubt that tanks, planes and heavy artillery would be all that useful to the regime.
Art
armedandsafe
Member
I was talking to the neighborhood Gunny (tank battalion armourer, Normandy to Bastogne) and asked him if he would like to have one of the tanks in the pictures he was showing me. He said "Sure, I have the right to bear arms. However, I have a bad back and could not 'bear' one of those babies." I was about 7 or 8 at the time, but I still remember many of the discussions we had as he was building Dad's FN Mauser with a "bring-back" action. He taught me much of what I know about the innards of firearms.
Pops
I was about 7 or 8 at the time, but I still remember many of the discussions we had as he was building Dad's FN Mauser with a "bring-back" action. He taught me much of what I know about the innards of firearms.Pops
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Oh yeah I forgot about the other one too. Heh heh, full auto divorce. Nice.
saltydog
Member
And thats the problem we have today and probably for the life of this country. If a candidate is afraid to stand up for machine gun ownership then "THE PEOPLE" are not in favor of it. The PEOPLE in this country are still the main reason that we have limited rights. The politicians are just there to carry out the "Will of the People, period." So were back to never ever ever ever owning new machine guns made after May 19,1986 "Period!"
Be lucky we can keep existing ones without bloodshed.
Libertyteeth
Member
I think howitzers were legally available via mailorder without registration or restrictions prior to 1968. This argues that they were once thought to be acceptable arms to own under the Second Amendment. I would think man-portable non-nuclear missiles should certainly be included these days... if there is any acceptable cut-off point, it should be things that inflict civilian casualties indiscriminately, such as nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons -- but governments should not have such things either. This would include depleted uranium munitions.
telomerase
Member
There were some restrictions put on in the 1930s gun law, but I don't know about howitzers. Before the 1930s gun law US citizens could literally have anything they wanted.
The big problem isn't nuclear weapons*, or gas weapons, or pointy sticks (if you're British). It's MONOPOLIES on weapons that kill people. Over 200 million people were killed by their "own" governments in the 20th century, in "peacetime".
Machetes will kill you just as dead as lithium deuteride, if your politicians' gangs have them and you don't.
*Certain viruses could kill everyone, but they let every psycho grad student have those
TEDDY
Member
second amend
Does any one know of people owning fighter aircraft.P51/jugs/lightnings ect.
the 1934 gun control act was under the commerce act.using that cover the gun laws have been add.I am an endowment member of the NRA.however I don't trust them completly.my experiance is they are a bunch of "good old boys" and have to put a fire to their feet from time to time.did you know there is a $10 associate membership. so the more numbers the more power we have.:banghead:
Does any one know of people owning fighter aircraft.P51/jugs/lightnings ect.
the 1934 gun control act was under the commerce act.using that cover the gun laws have been add.I am an endowment member of the NRA.however I don't trust them completly.my experiance is they are a bunch of "good old boys" and have to put a fire to their feet from time to time.did you know there is a $10 associate membership. so the more numbers the more power we have.:banghead:
bluto
Member
Art - I agree with you. I think force of numbers in an armed resistance is probably more important in the beginning of an insurrection than tanks or planes since resistance would probably start locally. It would probably eventually be dependent on recruiting major parts of our own military to join the cause.
Libertyteeth - Actually, I'm very comfortable with Class III weapons ownership. And tanks too if you've got the money to own them. I am not comfortable with private citizens stockpiling artillery shells or rockets since they can be used to indiscriminantly target civilian populaces and airliners without oversight or restriction. Our own army can't just "check out" missles for the weekend. There are protocols and restrictions on who may use them and when they may be used. Not so with civilians. I'm also not comfortable with some yo-yo (responsible citizen though he may be) having a few beers on the weekend before he decides to rearrange his collection of mortar shells or stingers and have an ND. Whoops, there goes the neighborhood.
Just to throw this in the mix: I firmly believe that the police should not be able to own or use any weapons that are restricted from civilian ownership. Different function. Different rules.
Libertyteeth - Actually, I'm very comfortable with Class III weapons ownership. And tanks too if you've got the money to own them. I am not comfortable with private citizens stockpiling artillery shells or rockets since they can be used to indiscriminantly target civilian populaces and airliners without oversight or restriction. Our own army can't just "check out" missles for the weekend. There are protocols and restrictions on who may use them and when they may be used. Not so with civilians. I'm also not comfortable with some yo-yo (responsible citizen though he may be) having a few beers on the weekend before he decides to rearrange his collection of mortar shells or stingers and have an ND. Whoops, there goes the neighborhood.
Just to throw this in the mix: I firmly believe that the police should not be able to own or use any weapons that are restricted from civilian ownership. Different function. Different rules.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
