Professional soldier forbidden full auto.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Attention!!!!!!!

When quoting another post PLEASE include the members username.

Just posting a "quote" without attribution is lazy.
 
I'm fine with soldiers getting no special treatment.

wsm said:
No one in the civilian world has any need for a full auto weapon of any kind.
Click to expand...

IMO, arguing about "need" is a very anti thing to do. I really don't "need" lots of gun related things - but need isn't in the equation from my end. I guess need is in your equation though.

wsm said:
but I see no need for me to own a full auto weapon
Click to expand...

So don't. Non-problem solved.

ETA: Added "WSM" for Dogtown Tom.
 
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.
Click to expand...
This gets stirred up a bit, and it muddies the water for missing an important point.

Suppose someone set up a 1st Church of Theft. Constitutionally, we cannot bar the religion practice; but, we'd be perfectly capable of restricting the property-loss aspects thereof. Ditto ritual mutilation or sacrifice--the religion is not what is restricted, only the criminal acts committed.

Which is what makes 2 amendment issues quite so thorny--there is a presumption, in our 20,000 "gun laws," that every aspect of RKBA is criminal. Which certainly seems to also violate the 4th amendment, too. After all, there are no presumptions that certain periodicals are suborning criminality; that some religions are inherently criminal. The presumption of mens rea is astounding.

And, that is what we in the the community have to address somehow.

Now, as to who and what ought be owned, I always seem to fall back up the words of Tench Coxe:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Click to expand...
Amen (emphasis added)
 
So did your bud, actually try to apply and have his ATF forms rejected or something? Or is this rant just not based on facts?
 
Last edited:
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?


Maybe. I used to agree with you on this point but things change. I know of a guy who embezzled millions from people in a Ponzi scheme. He destroyed many peoples lives by stealing all their money. There were people who gave this guy their life savings. Money they were planning to use to retire. One of his victims I know of had to go back to work (at age 70), sell his nice house and car and move into a trailer and drives an old clunker now. He's going to be lucky to get 5% of his money back because the state takes their fine first and then all the bankruptcy lawyers and accountants collect their fees. This guy is paying for the rest of his life. The embezzler? He got 3 years and is out now. He should be denied any right or privelege possible in my book.
 
wsm said:
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!
Click to expand...


The Constitution doesn't say anything about "need".
Even with no Second Amendment at all, there is no power delegated to the government (state or federal) stipulating their control over civilian arms ownership.
The problem is that people think the only rights they have are those enumerated by the Constitution or the BOR when in fact, they have ALL THE RIGHTS that weren't specifically put under the control of state or federal governments.
 
Which is what makes 2 amendment issues quite so thorny--there is a presumption, in our 20,000 "gun laws," that every aspect of RKBA is criminal. Which certainly seems to also violate the 4th amendment, too. After all, there are no presumptions that certain periodicals are suborning criminality; that some religions are inherently criminal. The presumption of mens rea is astounding.
Click to expand...

I am pretty familiar with many laws and regulations. Where is there a presumption that "every aspect of RKBA" is criminal?
 
wsm said:
I did not say necessity. I said that no one need one. Check it out, there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Your opinion that no one has a "need" for an automatic weapon is irrelevant from a Constitutional point of view because those rights are not granted based on necessity, they are natural rights.

So in the Constitutional context, "need" and "necessity" have the same significance, i.e. neither should ever been mentioned in any law regarding RBKA. Which of course makes your argument about needs completely pointless other than as a statist excuse to violate the 2nd amendment.
 
Bubba613 said:
I am pretty familiar with many laws and regulations. Where is there a presumption that "every aspect of RKBA" is criminal?
Click to expand...

Because every law regarding the RKBA supposes that, since you own a gun, you might at some point in the future do something bad with it.

i.e. ~ You don't 'need' high capacity magazines, because you might go on a shooting spree sometime in the future.

---

edit: lol @ CoRoMo - dude, you owe me a keyboard!
 
Uh, no.
ANd there is no law against high cap mags. Not where I live, anyway.
Maybe living in CA or NJ or wherever is prima facie evidence for being criminally inclined?
 
You are aware there is a bill pending regarding high capacity magazines since the shooting of a congresswoman, right?

How about restrictions on carrying a firearm? We want to make sure you are not carrying, because you might get angry and shoot people.

Come on, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for ya. :cool:
 
kilo729,

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



Let me try to shed some light on this. I served for thirty years and was only special to my Mom, and my dog. I did not own a full auto, I was issued one. The US government maintained full ownership. Civilians (in my state) can easily own fully automatic firearms. You just need to have enough money to buy one and pay the tax stamp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
serving in your country's military is an honorable duty, not a privilege
privilege is the province of royalty, not citizens; lawful rights are the province of citizens
those who voluntarily serve deserve our respect and gratitude for protecting our constitution (and more than they usually get), but not exemptions from the laws they serve to protect; not even if we disagree with some of those laws

PS
need love, like the man said, bet on your Mom and your dog
 
Last edited:
full auto

Dman, I only stated very clearly that it is my opinion that I don't have any need to, own or use, a full automatic weapon. The Constitution is very clear as to what rights we all have. If you want a machine gun and can afford the tax stamp and the ammo, go for it. I spent 20 years in the military, used almost all the small arms the US government owns, and was quite good with all of them. But, I never did then, nor do I now, feel that I, as a private citizen, NEED a fully automatic weapon. Now that, my fellow gun owners, has absolutely nothing to do with my constitutional rights. Rant over!
 
Affording the tax stamp is the least of the problem. It is affording the gun that is the problem as prices have skyrocketed since 1986 when no more new full autos could be registered. A typical registered and transferable military surplus M-16 now costs a civilian fifteen times what a nearly identical semi-auto version cost new. This effectivly makes it impossible for 99%+ of the population to ever own one.
 
As a vet I love to see myself as special. I won't lie. There are many out there who do nothing to contribute to our country and yes I will admit I like to think I am better than them. HOWEVER, most pay their taxes (my salary), work for a living, and try to do their best to live for both their happiness and to not be drain on society. Those people are my equal, serving in a way too.

As far as getting "privileges" for my service? I do get more than I feel I deserve. Preference towards some jobs on the civilian jobs, discounts from many companies, and thanks from people who I have never met. While I won't deny I will be using them- I need a job after all and saving money is always good-, I know they are just privileges granted by those willing and not something I should have a legal right to.

Firearms on a military base are severely restricted just to let you all know. Yeah, I was blessed with some backdoor deals as a "motivated" Marine that made things a little easier for me (mostly because the armorers got sick of being bugged having to sign out my personal weapons almost daily). But even then when, where, and why I pocessed them was scrutinized fully. My CO had to sign off on it, the armory "officially" held them (married Marines had housing and can store them there), every weapon including a knife had to be registered, and they had to be subject to a check at any time. So do not for one minute think we can just run amuck with auto weapons we keep under our beds or some crap. I remember well how many times I was pulled in to have my car searched and having to show full registration for each and every of my weapons just because I got picked that day.

Do I think I NEED a full auto? No. Do I think they should be as unrestricted as other firearms? No. Do I believe they should never be allowed? No.

There just some thoughts on this subject.
 
Owen Sparks said:
Affording the tax stamp is the least of the problem. It is affording the gun that is the problem as prices have skyrocketed since 1986 when no more new full autos could be registered. A typical registered and transferable military surplus M-16 now costs a civilian fifteen times what a nearly identical semi-auto version cost new. This effectivly makes it impossible for 99%+ of the population to ever own one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Any 'law' that makes it nearly impossible for anyone but the rich and powerful access to a type of firearm is ludicrous and an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

Why don't we make religion and free speech unaffordable for the average joe?
 
You are aware there is a bill pending regarding high capacity magazines since the shooting of a congresswoman, right?

How about restrictions on carrying a firearm? We want to make sure you are not carrying, because you might get angry and shoot people.

Come on, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for ya.
Click to expand...

And you are aware that the very same bill has been introduced in every Congress that Carolyn McCarthy is part of, right?

Would you say that speed limits are there because the gov't wants to make sure you don't go psycho and run off the road? Or are they a matter of public safety? Like a lot of other legislation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Casefull
  • Locked
A soldiers weapons in Afghanistan
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
talldragon
talldragon
D
  • Locked
Soldiers need 'precision-guided' pistols?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Farnham
F
I
  • Locked
A snowstorm, an airplane and an old soldier...a lesson in gratitude
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Ohio Gun Guy
Ohio Gun Guy
A
  • Locked
Irresponsible behavior by LEO?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
KelVarnson
K
Back
Top