Taking Down The NFA From The Inside...

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I Posted Something Similar ToThis On Another Thread:

I've got a question for you who don't think it's a good idea to get rid of the NFA and it's follow-ups:

If violent felons and criminals(those who cannot be trusted with arms) were to be kept in prison, would you agree there is no "need" for law forbidding them arms and no "need" for background checks on everyone else? All that would be needed in stead would be law laying out sentencing guidelines prohibiting the release of persons convicted of crimes using weapons and/or crimes of violence using weapons including the martial use of any body parts such as hands, teeth, feet, etc.

The nearly eliminated load on law enforcement dealing with repeat offenders, the elimination of the licensing of FFLs et seq commiserate with the elimination of the F and E part of BATFE, the elimination of the background check system, and the greatly reduced losses to the law abiding citizenry would more than compensate for the cost of permanently incarcerating those criminals. More death sentences would be prudent as well.

Don't come back with the excuse that there is no way to identify who might be a foreign national who is here illegally because there is a cure for that as well. There are institutions or guardianship for the unstable and guardianship(parents, etc) for the immature.

What say you?

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[ForeverArmed]

The NFA is certainly unconstitutional and should be done away with. But the 1986 "Gun Owners' Protection Act" is worse, since it forbids citizen ownership of newly-manufactured full-auto weapons even with a background check. I think it should be targeted first.

If the Republicans were truly pro-gun, they would have challenged these laws long ago. But they haven't. In fact, Reagan is the one who signed the 1986 ban.

It's time for gun owners to all get together and start voting Libertarian. That's the only way we'll get our legal rights back without violence. How many gun owners are there in the US -- like 1/3 of the population? If even half of those are serious enough about freedom to be convinced to vote Libertarian, that would make the Libertarian party a force to be reckoned with.

Personally, I think the best way to defeat the NFA would be to have it apply "fairly" across other freedoms in the BOR. We all know how the antis love to say things like "but the militias back then didn't have rapid-fire guns." And pretty much every 2A activist has countered that with the rhetorical "but the press didn't have rapid-fire internet publishing" and such.

My counter to that anti line is usually: "Militias didn't have rapid-fire guns back then, but neither did any government. Since the government now has rapid-fire guns, citizens need them too in order to make sure our rights stay safe."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

My counter to that anti line is usually: "Militias didn't have rapid-fire guns back then, but neither did any government. Since the government now has rapid-fire guns, citizens need them too in order to make sure our rights stay safe."

Absolutely. With the Second Amendment uninfringed, everything new that comes down the pike we get to keep and bear simply as a consequence of its invention.

Woody

God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood

 

[illspirit]

I've got a question for you who don't think it's a good idea to get rid of the NFA and it's follow-ups:

If violent felons and criminals(those who cannot be trusted with arms) were to be kept in prison, would you agree there is no "need" for law forbidding them arms and no "need" for background checks on everyone else? All that would be needed in stead would be law laying out sentencing guidelines prohibiting the release of persons convicted of crimes using weapons and/or crimes of violence using weapons including the martial use of any body parts such as hands, teeth, feet, etc.

My (probably unpopular) opinion would be to start by decriminalizing drugs, as such offenders' only victim is themselves. By doing so, we would eliminate millions of non-violent offenders from the system, thus freeing up resources to deal with the real dangerous ones. Not to mention shutting down the massive black market, which, like Prohibition in the past, is at the root of most of the violence.

With less prison crowding, there would, in theory, be less need for the almost universal use of plea-bargaining, early release, etc.. of violent criminals in order to free up cells for people who only hurt themselves.

Then (and perhaps even more unpopularly), I don't see any reason why those criminals who have served their time and paid their debt to society should be denied any rights; be it voting, gun ownership, whatever. Were the system not overburdened with non-violent offenses, perhaps it might be able to actually rehabilitate people on occasion. Or at least keep the really bad apples away from the bunch.

My counter to that anti line is usually: "Militias didn't have rapid-fire guns back then, but neither did any government. Since the government now has rapid-fire guns, citizens need them too in order to make sure our rights stay safe."

That would of course be the correct answer. But then you must remember when dealing with antis, they live in a magical realm of cognitive dissonance. A realm where guns are simultaneously so powerful the military would use them to crush any resistance, and on the other hand totally harmless against said military. Just as they feel even a BB gun in the hands of a criminal is a perfectly efficient killing machine, but law-abiding citizens are somehow unable to use a gun for defense (see also: "they'll only take it and use it against you!"). So since they won't let little things like facts and stuff get in the way of an emotional position, one might as well use their illogic against them.

 

[crunker]

ksnecktieman, I never said GLOCKs can't be detected by metal detectors because they can.

However, some firearms can't be detected (I heard of one quite some time ago) and these must be registered as AOWs. I think that restrictions on these should still apply.

I don't follow your logic... are you stating that the Second Amendment protects civillian possesion of artillery?

The Second Amendment protects small arms, or arms that serve a purpose in a well-regulated militia.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

illspirit

Your "unpopular" opinions are not so unpopular. Unleftist maybe, but not unpopular.

I'd be willing to go along with the decriminalizing of drug use just to stop the flow of cash to the underworld and terrorists. Along with that, I want complete and unfettered access to arms, and protection from prosecution to kill any doper(or any other criminal for that matter) who tries to hold me up.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

... are you stating that the Second Amendment protects civillian possesion of artillery?

The Second Amendment protects small arms, or arms that serve a purpose in a well-regulated militia.

I can't answer for Ksnecktieman, but I would answer "yes!". And, as far as you went with your second statement you are correct. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. Be they small, large, or fit some bogus requirement the Supreme Court conjured up back in 1939 is immaterial.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[wdlsguy]

are you stating that the Second Amendment protects civillian possesion of artillery?

I can't speak for ksnecktieman, but as far as I'm concerned, yes. See the definition of "destructive device" in 26 USC 5845.

The Second Amendment protects small arms, or arms that serve a purpose in a well-regulated militia.

Which would include things like grenade launchers, RPGs, mortars, etc.

 

[DKSuddeth]

But then you must remember when dealing with antis, they live in a magical realm of cognitive dissonance. A realm where guns are simultaneously so powerful the military would use them to crush any resistance, and on the other hand totally harmless against said military. Just as they feel even a BB gun in the hands of a criminal is a perfectly efficient killing machine, but law-abiding citizens are somehow unable to use a gun for defense (see also: "they'll only take it and use it against you!").

though they won't readily admit this, the reason they believe this is because they have such low disregard for themselves and their fellow man. Criminals have superhuman powers, as do police and military, but those who are peacable could never match a criminals cruelty because they aren't made that way, therefore, guns are evil and import great abilities to those who would use them for evil.

 

[crunker]

wdlsguy, yes, the Second Amendment protects ownership of grenades, RPGs and mortars as individual soldiers are issued such arms.

However, as individual or even squads are not issued howitzers, the Second Amendment does not really protect your right to just go out to a hardware store and pick up a howitzer.

Licensing of howitzers would be legal under the Second Amendment, however, licensing of grenades, machineguns, RPGs, or mortars is not legal under the Second Amendment.

 

[wdlsguy]

the Second Amendment does not really protect your right to just go out to a hardware store and pick up a howitzer.

Why not? I can make one (on a Form 1) or buy one (on a Form 4) right now.

 

[ForeverArmed]

Absolutely. With the Second Amendment uninfringed, everything new that comes down the pike we get to keep and bear simply as a consequence of its invention.

I might qualify my earlier statement, however, by adding "as long as those weapons and/or equipment serve to keep power in the hands of the citizens and guarantee that the government is only by consent of the governed."

We're not talking about nukes here. Some weapons are necessarily large-scale in their effects and lack precision, so they're only appropriate for use by one country against another. Such weapons would not even be effective for use in a guerrilla war by either the guerrillas or the government.

This is why I have no problem with the "collective ownership" of weapons such as fighter jets and missiles, since these weapons could easily be captured by the American citizenry if the latter chose to do so. But when it comes to small arms, citizens should own anything available to the government.

Soldiers and police aren't gods. They are human beings and are no better than anyone else. Sometimes they are considerably worse. If Joe Citizen can't be trusted with an M60, then neither can anyone in the government.

The best way to put this philosophy (which was shared by Jefferson et al.) into practice would be to establish a militia system like that of the Swiss. Let the Navy and Air Force be manned by professional military folks, but get rid of the standing infantry and have an armed and trained citizen militia instead.