Vibe
Member
Then only the lawyers and cocaine dealers will be able to afford them. Yeah, that'll help.
What "reasonable restrictions" should we accept for full auto
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
- Status
Drgong said:
These phrases get repeated so often that the actual meaning gets lost. Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater; if the theater is on fire. This isn't a restriction on free speech it is a call for responsibility. Any equivalents in the case of NFA items are already against the law.
Scoutsout2645
Member
Exactly. Far more likely to take away your RKBA than any background check, waiting period or license ever could. And the precedent for such prohibitive taxes exist--why do you think items like cigarrettes have quadrupled in cost over the last ten years. Quite frankly, I'm surprised--and relieved--that gun opponents haven't used this tactic. "OK, we'll drop all licensing and background restrictions but we'll just add a nominal transaction tax" which will be increased slowly, gradually until it's functionally prohibitive. We'd still have the right, it's just that we'd rather eat and live indoors than spend the money to exercise that right. Far scarier than anything Pelosi's put out so far.
Vibe
Member
SCOTUS has already ruled, several times, that it is unconstitutional to tax an enumerated right. I actually see that as being on the short list of suits to follow Heller.
Sam Adams
Member
Such a tax - a tax on the a constitutionally-protected right - is unconstitutional under Murdoch v. Pennsylvania (1943). See http://nesara.org/court_summaries/murdoch_v_pennsylvania.htm
Not only would an increase in the NFA tax almost certainly be unconstituional, but the very existence of the thing is in question now that the ownership of firearms is a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right. Oh, and BTW, one of the items listed in the complaint in "Heller II" is the registration fee that DC wants to charge. The whole issue may be disposed of by a Court pissed off that DC has thumbed its nose at the first decision.
I would support common sense regulations, but it would be limited to the a background check (NICS). I see the form 4473 as being outdated, with NICS in place. Machineguns, SBR , AOW, SBS, Suppressors are no more dangerous than a "regular" firearm and should be treated in the same manner.
That is not to say if you bring your bank account in the equation in terms of ammo costs then yes machine guns can be dangerous...
That is not to say if you bring your bank account in the equation in terms of ammo costs then yes machine guns can be dangerous...
IA_farmboy
Member
I believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. They saw the need in explicitly forbidding the government from denying one's ability to defend themselves. A vending machine on the corner would certainly be acceptable to me. The primary deterrent to having 10 year olds from buying firearms in that situation is the cost. If they can scavenge up $700 for a Glock by picking up pop cans for recycling then they are a determined, industrious, and likely unsupervised to the point that I think such a child is going to get their hands on a firearm anyway.
Likewise with the gangbanger. Do you really think that making it illegal for a previous offender to own a firearm will really stop them from getting one? Don't you suppose that someone that did time for murder, armed robbery, and assault is not just going to kill someone for their firearm? It doesn't take a gun to kill, but it certainly makes it easier.
The drunks, drug addicted (but I repeat myself), mentally deranged, and those otherwise prone to violence and irresponsible actions are in need of supervision. These are people in need of medical care. These people should not be roaming the streets because of the danger they pose to themselves and others. If firearms were available in vending machines then the caregivers for those not responsible enough to care for themselves should determine whether or not, and in what situations, such a person can keep and operate a firearm.
I see only futility in many of the gun control laws we have. People with no respect for law or other's safety are not affected by gun control laws. Only law abiding citizens are.
I have no fear in being able to pass a fair background check. Problem is, what keeps them fair? What recourse do I have if there is an error in the background check system? What prevents the government from just turning off the background check system tomorrow? I find it more disturbing that the government has such power over our ability to defend ourselves than the fact that a few crazies here and there might get guns. You see the criminals already have the guns, law abiding citizens do not.
I also don't think that a firearms primary purpose is to kill. I believe it's primary purpose is to DEFEND. It is able to deter an attacker precisely because of it's lethality. If it wasn't lethal then it would not have that ability to defend. An attacker that is not deterred by the threat of death can only be stopped by being wounded or killed. I then have to ask, if guns are only for killing then why do police like them so much? Shouldn't they be locked up for clinging to their weapons since only a killer or lunatic would carry a weapon of such lethality everyday?
Which brings me to my last point. The state is not responsible for our safety. We are responsible for our own safety. Also, the state is made up of people. Saying the state can have weapons but not the people makes every one not under the employ of the government a second class citizen. I believe the state should only have weapons that the people can have. The government is the people so if the people believe a weapon is so dangerous that a sane adult cannot be trusted with it then the government (consisting primarily of responsible adults) cannot be trusted with it.
Of course, because reading the Constitution as it was written is synonymous with advocating anarchy.
Reasonable restrictions on firearms (all types)?
Don't shoot people except in self-defense, or you will be imprisoned or executed.
Don't recklessly endanger people using firearms, i.e. don't blow off a 30-rounder in full-auto at the local playground in the middle of the city, just to express your exuberance.
Hard to think of anything else that's "reasonable."
Don't shoot people except in self-defense, or you will be imprisoned or executed.
Don't recklessly endanger people using firearms, i.e. don't blow off a 30-rounder in full-auto at the local playground in the middle of the city, just to express your exuberance.
Hard to think of anything else that's "reasonable."
garlicguy
Member
While I absolutely agree, Woody...
I guess I have to ask:
Are you planning on starting a new government? Our currently elected band of elitists are not very darned likely to be making the changes you mentioned anytime soon.
gg
I guess I have to ask:
Are you planning on starting a new government? Our currently elected band of elitists are not very darned likely to be making the changes you mentioned anytime soon.
gg
ctdonath
Member
We're talking machineguns here, not cheap snubbies. Most machineguns will be (unrestricted & untaxed) $1000 and up, and cost several dollars per trigger pull. Stay on topic, please.
NO IT'S NOT. My argument is that there's no point in harassing the law-abiding & innocent, when act A is either (on the whole) too expensive for criminal abuse, or is already hugely illegal, or (as is the case with the topic at hand) both. For all the effort to implement "reasonable restrictions", it's way too easy for the criminally-minded to simply not cooperate and do as they like.
Yes, let's: in your support for registration, that means
- Registration not just for driving, but for drinking as well (a 'NICS' check for every serving you order)
- Registration of all males, including samples and identifying descriptions ( wink wink ), at the onset of puberty
- Review of the whereabouts of everyone when solving a murder.
In my approach (not the one you impute to me), none of these would involve pre-emptive presumption of potential guilt.
ctdonath
Member
Review your history: That's exactly why "Class III" exists. When enacted, the NFA tax amounted to >$3000 in today's dollars - prohibition by taxation. It's only because of inflation that the $200 tax seems more like a sales tax than prohibition.
ctdonath
Member
Buying into your own hysteria, eh?
Why is it that your conclusion from your questions is to prohibit ME from owning an M4? I'm not ten, schizophrenic, or a felon - all of whom can get what they want, or something close, if they just put their minds to it, being willing to operate "outside the system".
Scoutsout2645
Member
"The drunks, drug addicted (but I repeat myself), mentally deranged, and those otherwise prone to violence and irresponsible actions are in need of supervision. These are people in need of medical care. These people should not be roaming the streets because of the danger they pose to themselves and others."
I agree, just as I agree that violent felons should be incarcerated at hard labor for the duration of their natural lives. Unfortunately our legislature disagrees with me, so these people are released, unsupervised, into the general population to do as they will.
"It doesn't take a gun to kill, but it certainly makes it easier."--see above paragraph
"I see only futility in many of the gun control laws we have. People with no respect for law or other's safety are not affected by gun control laws. Only law abiding citizens are."
I agree with you (almost) 100%. The majority of the problem is not legislation, it is enforcement. Fed. and State Gov't either don't have the manpower or the will to prosecute those who violate the existing laws. As a result, the general public is afraid and nothing promotes poorly devised, overly restrictive and/or unenforcable laws like fear. If dealers who sell guns illegally, people who conduct straw purchases for criminals, and others on the supply end were prosecuted as a deterrent, far fewer guns would end up in the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.
"I also don't think that a firearms primary purpose is to kill... if guns are only for killing then why do police like them so much"
They absolutely are. This isn't a good or a bad thing, guns are merely tools designed to help us kill: you may choose to defend yourself with deadly force, but they are still designed to kill; you may choose to hunt deer, but they are still designed to kill. Police like these tools precisely because we face the irresponsible and criminal who use guns/swords/knives/axes and all other implements of destruction to threaten and harm us and the law-abiding "good" citizens we are entrusted to protect.
which brings us to "The state is not responsible for our safety. We are responsible for our own safety"
Well...yes and no. We DO have the right to defend ourselves against unlawful force, which is why self-defense doctrines exist in the courts. However, as a citizen in society, we delegate some of the responsibility of protection to the state--this is why we have police, courts, regulatory bodies and a standing military. Protecting yourself against an attack is OK, chasing down and killing a fleeing attacker isn't.
And to ctdonath:
1) Nothing should prohibit YOU (in my view), based on your description of yourself, from owning an M-4.
2) I know this is somewhat off topic but the issue is of "reasonable restrictions". If we all agree that a 7.62 fired from a bolt action or from an M-60 does the same damage, and if we both agree that there should be no difference in laws regardless of the style, form, caliber or cyclic rate of the weapon, then the discussion is simply whether restrictions of any type are necessary for FIREARMS. I know I am in the minority here by advocating ANY restrictions, but I respect your views and want to fully understand what you advocate and discuss the full consequences--both theoretical and practical--of both of our positions. I have enough of an anarchist streak in me that I dislike some of the positions I take, but from practical experience I know that the choices I have are "bad vs. worse" not "good vs. bad"
If you all feel that I have taken this thread into deeper waters that exceed the scope of the original post, I'm more than willing to start fresh, but I think that there's enough common ground with the OP that this is OK.
I agree, just as I agree that violent felons should be incarcerated at hard labor for the duration of their natural lives. Unfortunately our legislature disagrees with me, so these people are released, unsupervised, into the general population to do as they will.
"It doesn't take a gun to kill, but it certainly makes it easier."--see above paragraph
"I see only futility in many of the gun control laws we have. People with no respect for law or other's safety are not affected by gun control laws. Only law abiding citizens are."
I agree with you (almost) 100%. The majority of the problem is not legislation, it is enforcement. Fed. and State Gov't either don't have the manpower or the will to prosecute those who violate the existing laws. As a result, the general public is afraid and nothing promotes poorly devised, overly restrictive and/or unenforcable laws like fear. If dealers who sell guns illegally, people who conduct straw purchases for criminals, and others on the supply end were prosecuted as a deterrent, far fewer guns would end up in the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.
"I also don't think that a firearms primary purpose is to kill... if guns are only for killing then why do police like them so much"
They absolutely are. This isn't a good or a bad thing, guns are merely tools designed to help us kill: you may choose to defend yourself with deadly force, but they are still designed to kill; you may choose to hunt deer, but they are still designed to kill. Police like these tools precisely because we face the irresponsible and criminal who use guns/swords/knives/axes and all other implements of destruction to threaten and harm us and the law-abiding "good" citizens we are entrusted to protect.
which brings us to "The state is not responsible for our safety. We are responsible for our own safety"
Well...yes and no. We DO have the right to defend ourselves against unlawful force, which is why self-defense doctrines exist in the courts. However, as a citizen in society, we delegate some of the responsibility of protection to the state--this is why we have police, courts, regulatory bodies and a standing military. Protecting yourself against an attack is OK, chasing down and killing a fleeing attacker isn't.
And to ctdonath:
1) Nothing should prohibit YOU (in my view), based on your description of yourself, from owning an M-4.
2) I know this is somewhat off topic but the issue is of "reasonable restrictions". If we all agree that a 7.62 fired from a bolt action or from an M-60 does the same damage, and if we both agree that there should be no difference in laws regardless of the style, form, caliber or cyclic rate of the weapon, then the discussion is simply whether restrictions of any type are necessary for FIREARMS. I know I am in the minority here by advocating ANY restrictions, but I respect your views and want to fully understand what you advocate and discuss the full consequences--both theoretical and practical--of both of our positions. I have enough of an anarchist streak in me that I dislike some of the positions I take, but from practical experience I know that the choices I have are "bad vs. worse" not "good vs. bad"
If you all feel that I have taken this thread into deeper waters that exceed the scope of the original post, I'm more than willing to start fresh, but I think that there's enough common ground with the OP that this is OK.
Ian Sean
Member
Restrictions for NFA? NONE
Should be no different than if I went to buy a .22 Cricket or a Belt Fed MG-42.
For the nay-sayers...no, I do not have any NFA goodies, but as with all our gun rights, I support ALL of them. None of this selective feel good nonsense from me.
Either the gun movement is seriously infiltrated, or the enemy propaganda is better than I thought, either way it appears we are our own worst enemies sometimes.
Should be no different than if I went to buy a .22 Cricket or a Belt Fed MG-42.
For the nay-sayers...no, I do not have any NFA goodies, but as with all our gun rights, I support ALL of them. None of this selective feel good nonsense from me.
Either the gun movement is seriously infiltrated, or the enemy propaganda is better than I thought, either way it appears we are our own worst enemies sometimes.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
This is how I see it:
1. If you're not in prison, CHECK!
2. If you're not confined to a mental institution, CHECK!
3. You made it into the gun store and you look like a human being, CHECK!
2. If you're not confined to a mental institution, CHECK!
3. You made it into the gun store and you look like a human being, CHECK!
It's still an infringement. At any rate, what in Hell are all those obvious candidates to harm others doing out of prison or an institution, or not under guardianship?Scoutsout2645 said:
What disturbs me is that these people are not executed, or in prison or an institution, or not under guardianship. It's what we have police forces and a judiciary for.Scoutsout2645 said:
Scoutsout2645 said:
The state cannot protect us from all harm any where near as well as we can protect ourselves. If the state has a responsibility, it's to keep those proven miscreants locked up. The state cannot prevent crime. All it can do is punish criminals and separate them from society as they crop up. In the mean time, a well armed society will discourage such bad actors and maybe even reduce their numbers in defensive actions. A well armed society isn't going to stand by and watch as a miscreant here and there kills innocent people one after the other.
Scoutsout2645 said:
Our government - our constitutional representative form - IS humanity's inherent good nature and co-operative spirit.
Scoutsout2645 said:
It isn't about whether we'd still have the right, but that government is prohibited to infringe upon it.
Scoutsout2645 said:
We still need the legislation requiring such convicted violent felons and mentally unstable to be locked up, and for the facilities to be built. Most crime is committed by repeat offenders. Lock them up and keep them locked up until they can be trusted and you'll see such crime diminish significantly and, therefore, reduce the load on law enforcement personnel and the courts.
garlicguy said:
I AM actually starting a new government - with each and every vote I cast, and each soapbox I stand on. You can do it too!
Woody
"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood
LongRider
Member
All guns bb guns to rail guns should be sold without paper work of any kind other than receipt and manufactures warranty. All citizens need to be able to carry the gun of their choice as they see fit.
No gun registration, no qualifications, no certifications, no permits, or requirements other than citizenship. The straw arguments about allowing children getting guns are completely irrelevant. Children have limited rights, They do not have the right to vote, they have limited free speech right, the have limited rights to privacy etc so to are their 2 A rights limited. The creation of restrictions & punishment because of something a few might do is contrary to individual freedom, rights, justice, due process and the American way of life. Of course I believe in responsibility and accountability.
If anyone abuses a right than nail them to the wall make them pay the price. Punish the wackos, felons or anyone that harms others with guns make them not the whole country pay the price. IMO those penalties be far more sever and imposed far more consistently. Back room deals plea bargains for violent armed criminals need to end. But you do not penalize a whole nation because of what a few "might" do. Not in a free country
I'd support mandatory gun safety training to graduate high school or middle school. In fact IMO every citizen would benefit from mandatory basic training / boot camp. But not as a requirement for gun ownership of any kind. The reason being that any permit certification, qualification or any specific requirements for gun ownership is de-facto registration. A list of all those who own guns. A list that the government has already repeatedly proven it will use to confiscate guns, thereby undermining the intent of 2A IMO
Personally I would like to see us adapt the Swedish model of a having military issue weapons in every home. I believe that is what our forefather assumed would be the result of 2A . They never envisioned a time when this nation would be so effete that the average citizen would squat to piddle their panties at the sight of an American citizen with a gun strapped to their hip. I am sure that if George Washington saw a vision of a purple green haired gender confused urbanite looking like they rolled down the stairs holding a fishing tackle and the last two years comic strip tattooed on their body squirting pudding in their drawers because the saw a gun or a honest working man slinking down the street hiding his gun like it was it was the pedophile weekly. He'd have plowed his hemp crop under and entered rehab.
BTW I am extremely offended by some posters insistence about how I should feel IF I am a law abiding citizen. As if I do not agree I must not be law abiding, reasonable , patriotic. or worthy. Perhaps those that see fit to dictate how I should feel will want my keyboard registered after my guns are secured since I do not feel think or believe as I "should"
No gun registration, no qualifications, no certifications, no permits, or requirements other than citizenship. The straw arguments about allowing children getting guns are completely irrelevant. Children have limited rights, They do not have the right to vote, they have limited free speech right, the have limited rights to privacy etc so to are their 2 A rights limited. The creation of restrictions & punishment because of something a few might do is contrary to individual freedom, rights, justice, due process and the American way of life. Of course I believe in responsibility and accountability.
If anyone abuses a right than nail them to the wall make them pay the price. Punish the wackos, felons or anyone that harms others with guns make them not the whole country pay the price. IMO those penalties be far more sever and imposed far more consistently. Back room deals plea bargains for violent armed criminals need to end. But you do not penalize a whole nation because of what a few "might" do. Not in a free country
I'd support mandatory gun safety training to graduate high school or middle school. In fact IMO every citizen would benefit from mandatory basic training / boot camp. But not as a requirement for gun ownership of any kind. The reason being that any permit certification, qualification or any specific requirements for gun ownership is de-facto registration. A list of all those who own guns. A list that the government has already repeatedly proven it will use to confiscate guns, thereby undermining the intent of 2A IMO
Personally I would like to see us adapt the Swedish model of a having military issue weapons in every home. I believe that is what our forefather assumed would be the result of 2A . They never envisioned a time when this nation would be so effete that the average citizen would squat to piddle their panties at the sight of an American citizen with a gun strapped to their hip. I am sure that if George Washington saw a vision of a purple green haired gender confused urbanite looking like they rolled down the stairs holding a fishing tackle and the last two years comic strip tattooed on their body squirting pudding in their drawers because the saw a gun or a honest working man slinking down the street hiding his gun like it was it was the pedophile weekly. He'd have plowed his hemp crop under and entered rehab.
BTW I am extremely offended by some posters insistence about how I should feel IF I am a law abiding citizen. As if I do not agree I must not be law abiding, reasonable , patriotic. or worthy. Perhaps those that see fit to dictate how I should feel will want my keyboard registered after my guns are secured since I do not feel think or believe as I "should"
Ian Sean
Member
It is the Swiss...not Swedes....but what the heck the rest of your rant more than makes up for the mistake..
Bravo.
ctdonath
Member
That's probably the most concise & effective answer to the issue I've ever seen. Others have made the point, but not quite so well.
Felons? If they're that dangerous, why are they out? (as if they can't get guns, MGs included, illegally.) ...and do people realize what lame crap gets "felony" convictions these days?
Insane? If they're that dangerous, why are they out? (there's a reason such people used to be permanently institutionalized.)
Children? If they're that dangerous, why are they out? (it takes a special lack of perspective to worry about 10-year-olds buying $1000 weapons from vending machines.) Hello, parental responsibility!
I'd only add that ranges on private property, where appropriate, should be okay too.
The amount of junk that accumulates at impromptu shooting ranges on Public land is already a problem, and with full auto I expect it would only get worse -fridges cut-in-half, riddled park service out-buildings, etc.
Ian Sean,
The Swedish Hemvärnet (Home Guard) is similar to the Swiss Mil, in that issued personal rifles (H&K G3 variant in this case) are stored at home.
http://www.hemvarnet.mil.se/article.php?id=13702&lang=E
(IIRC, though there was a push to keep the rifle bolts locked up at the local police station - but unsure if that ever came about?)
The amount of junk that accumulates at impromptu shooting ranges on Public land is already a problem, and with full auto I expect it would only get worse -fridges cut-in-half, riddled park service out-buildings, etc.
Ian Sean,
The Swedish Hemvärnet (Home Guard) is similar to the Swiss Mil, in that issued personal rifles (H&K G3 variant in this case) are stored at home.
http://www.hemvarnet.mil.se/article.php?id=13702&lang=E
(IIRC, though there was a push to keep the rifle bolts locked up at the local police station - but unsure if that ever came about?)
IA_farmboy
Member
Think a minute about WHY those firearm laws are not enforced. Suppose we have a fellow with the following charges:
- possession of weapon by previous offender
- armed robbery
- motor vehicle theft
- felony speeding
- evading police/resisting arrest
- reckless endangerment
- possession of stolen firearm
The lawyers are going to look at that long list and decide which ones to take to court. They realize that the minor crimes are not worth their time since just one, armed robbery, will put the guy away for a long time. They have witnesses, photos, fingerprints, DNA evidence, serial numbers from stolen bank notes, etc. They might not even have to go to court.
The other reason that firearm laws tend not to get to court is that lawyers don't like to see firearm laws in court. They know the Second Amendment exists and they do not want to give a criminal a chance to turn the tables on them and put the law up for trial. This is especially true after Heller, we are having convicted felons argue their right to own a firearm and it is actually GOING TO COURT. Lawyers don't want to lose that leverage of a firearms charge to coerce a plea bargain. Some LEOs love to have an excuse to "go fish" if they see a firearm. This is because gun control is not about guns, it's about control.
Ian Sean
Member
JoshM, thanks I did NOT know that! I thought the Swiss were the only ones with sense.
Looks like a have a bit of reading to do so I can add the Swedes to the argument when it (usually) comes up in discussion.Thanks for the link also.
leadcounsel
member
Only restrictions that don't interfere with "...shall not be infringed...".
I am not worried a whole lot about basically law abiding citizens owning firearms of whatever type. There is no evidence that law abiding citizens suddenly become criminals just because they see or touch some kind of firearm. Thus if the word "reasonable" means some kind of means to reduce crime, any restrictions on law abiding people from having firearms is not reasonable since law abiding people do not commit crimes in the first place.
I have absolutely no qualms about prohibiting people who have previously shown they are a threat to others BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS, from possessing firearms. It does not actually do anything to prevent them from doing so, but its not bad to still make it illegal.
I am unconvinced that people convicted of non-violent offenses should be prohibited from owning firearms, whether it is a felony or not. I also think that for those convicted of violent offenses, felony or not, there is good reason to look closely at whether they should be in possession of firearms.
- Status