Michigan goes full auto again!! Woohoo!!

[PlayboyPenguin]

If guns cause murders, then spoons cause fat.

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

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Debates?

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

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Debates?

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

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

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

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

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

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

That was not an answer to my question.

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

 

[Radagast]

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

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

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

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

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That was not an answer to my question.

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

Quite the contrary -- anyone who could post this:

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

. . . needs to go to the source.

 

[nwgunslinger]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wdlsguy]

As the Federal machine gun register is still closed

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

 

[Snake Eyes]

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

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

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

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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

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

 

[jtward01]

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

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

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

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

 

[jtward01]

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


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

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

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

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

 

[answerguy]

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

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

 

[Owen]

Uh, Penguin,

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

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

Writing without bias is a futile exercise.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Wouldn't the telephone be an "effect"

The telephone itself might fall into the catagory of an "effect", but what I said was:

tapping your telephone line at the utility pole

A private citizen neither owns, rents, has access or any claim to the utility pole or the lines running on it. It is simply a carrier of electrical surges that may or may not get re-assembled in their disembodied voice.

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

:banghead:

 

[Sleeping Dog]

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

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

Read my sig. I can't say it any better than that.



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

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

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

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

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

Regards.

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

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

 

[Maxwell]

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

Sorry, I just had to post this

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vern Humphrey]

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

 

[chas_martel]

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

Why do you even post here?

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

 

[chas_martel]

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

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

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

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

 

[chas_martel]

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

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

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

 

[Kodiaz]

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