Professional soldier forbidden full auto.

[AlexanderA]

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]

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]

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]

*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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ^

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.......

 

[J_McLeod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^I hope you are being sarcastic, and my meter is busted all up, but please explain?

 

[Bubba613]

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]

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]

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]

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.