The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[General Geoff]

Yeah lets do that, return machine guns to the open non regulated market place. That is pure genius. Maybe small armor vehicles mounting anything smaller than a 105mm gun and slightly modified RPGs as well.

I've got no problem with that, but why limit it to 105mm? Is a 106mm cannon evil?

 

[CoRoMo]

Simple question Ruggles...

return machine guns to the open non regulated market place.

Can you explain the absurdity you see in that?

 

[Ruggles]

"Simple question Ruggles...

Quote:
return machine guns to the open non regulated market place.
Can you explain the absurdity you see in that?"

If you can not see it I have no chance to explain it to you. But if you are OK with machine guns how about 105mm guns, chain guns, claymores, RPG 7s? Where do you draw the line?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yeah lets do that, return machine guns to the open non regulated market place. That is pure genius. Maybe small armor vehicles mounting anything smaller than a 105mm gun and slightly modified RPGs as well.

There is the deep end and wait, there you are going over it.

You are aware that machine guns are legal to buy, own, and sell in this country are you not?

All I'm talking about is reversing Hughes and if you had any idea about this topic you'd know that.

You are one of the least informed people I've ever seen try to debate this issue.

If you can not see it I have no chance to explain it to you. But if you are OK with machine guns how about 105mm guns, chain guns, claymores, RPG 7s? Where do you draw the line?

All of those things are legal to buy, sell, and own already. Do you know anything at all about the current state of gun laws?

 

[CoRoMo]

No, seriously Ruggles. Give us your explanation.
You obviously like to play games, but man up on this one.

FYI this button

in the reply box is the quote function.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah lets do that, return machine guns to the open non regulated market place. That is pure genius. Maybe small armor vehicles mounting anything smaller than a 105mm gun and slightly modified RPGs as well.

The hatred shines through in that post. But where's your evidence that the current ban on new machine guns does anything?

Did you know that in England, I can buy a silencer over the counter, but not here in the US?

Did you know that in areas under US control in Iraq, each family was allowed to have one fully-automatic weapon?

 

[Ruggles]

"You are aware that machine guns are legal to buy, own, and sell in this country are you not?
All I'm talking about is reversing Hughes and if you had any idea about this topic you'd know that."

Nice attempt to avoid the question. Where do you draw the line? Give us uneducated folks some examples of where the government should control the legal ownership of weapon systems, be they small arms or larger.


"You are one of the least informed people I've ever seen try to debate this issue."

And where do you consider yourself in this regard? All I have seen is you baseless / fact-less claims that firearms legislation has no effect on gun crime. Is that you definition of being informed on the matter? If it is it then you really need to get out into the real world sometime.

 

[General Geoff]

Give us uneducated folks some examples of where the government should control the legal ownership of weapon systems, be they small arms or larger.

There are none.

All I have seen is you baseless / fact-less claims that firearms legislation has no effect on gun crime.

Gun law by definition creates more gun crime. It has zero effect on crimes with victims.

 

[waterhouse]

If you can not see it I have no chance to explain it to you.

Please try. I will read what you write.

Ruggles, machine guns are currently legal. Due to current laws, they are very expensive. Is it your belief that no one should be able to own a machine gun?

The current laws basically limit ownership of machine guns to the wealthy. Can you explain how this is a good law? Is it because wealthy people are more sane and safer with their guns than non-wealthy people?

 

[TexasRifleman]

And where do you consider yourself in this regard? All I have seen is you baseless / fact-less claims that firearms legislation has no effect on gun crime. Is that you definition of being informed on the matter? If it is it then you really need to get out into the real world sometime.

Baseless and factless other than the reams of documents from the Department of Justice, Congressional reports, NRA and SAF research, research from Lott, research from Heritage Foundation.

Yeah, no facts from me huh? Nope, I just make it up as I go.

Nice attempt to avoid the question. Where do you draw the line? Give us uneducated folks some examples of where the government should control the legal ownership of weapon systems, be they small arms or larger.

Again, those items you list are legal to buy sell and own already. Since you are uneducated on the topic I will explain it.

In 1934 Congress passed the National Firearms Act, a tax law, requiring a tax be paid for the transfer of certain types of guns including machine guns, claymores, howitzers, grenades, etc. It did NOT outlaw ownership.

In 1986 Congress passed a law called the Hughes Amendment. This made the manufacture of machneguns after May of 1986 restricted to LE only. Machineguns that were already in the market could continue to be bought sold and used, but no new ones could be made.

Reversing Hughes would simply undo that. It doesn't put machineguns on the rack at Wal Mart, it doesn't change anything at all. Since 1934 only 2 crimes have been committed by legally owned machine guns by the way.

Destructive Devices were not included in Hughes so if you want to own a grenade it's perfectly legal.

Now you are educated. Unless of course you think I'm making it all up again.....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Nice attempt to avoid the question. Where do you draw the line? Give us uneducated folks some examples of where the government should control the legal ownership of weapon systems, be they small arms or larger.

If you were familiar with the Debates, you would remember what Tench Coxe said, "All the terrible implements of the soldier."

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. 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 always remain, in the hands of the people."

Where do you draw the line?

Would you allow Congress to license newsmen? To license churches? And then to kill any new attemts at starting a news organization or building a new church by simply not appropriating money to the licensing organization?

Would you allow warrantless searches, or police trials, simply because Congress decided not to appropriate money to pay judges and juries?

Now let's see you avoid the question.

 

[CoRoMo]

Nice attempt to avoid the question.

Pot calling the kettle black!!!

Answer the question Ruggles.

 

[Ruggles]

"No, seriously Ruggles. Give us your explanation.
You obviously like to play games, but man up on this one."

I seem to have asked you a question as well, where do you draw the line at what should be legal to own? what weapon or weapon system should not be in the hands of U.S. citizens legally?

The laws controlling (not outlawing) of fully automatic firearms have been the law of this land for decades. If the American people wanted them changed they have had dozens and dozens of elections to put folks in power to change / revoke them. They have not done so. That my friend is all that is needed to keep them under the legal control they are now.

As for my personal reason for not wanting them to be as readily obtainable as semi auto firearms is their ability to cause many times the mayhem under the control of a single individual. Having carried fully auto weapon systems many a day for Uncle Sam I am very well aware of their abilities. I do not want to see those abilities easily exploited at the local church, shopping mall or high school football game. I have absolutely no problem with the current laws controlling this type of firearm.

Again if you OK with fully auto weapons having little to no regulation at which level of weapon system do you draw the line? Or do you draw it at all?

 

[General Geoff]

The laws controlling (not outlawing) of fully automatic firearms have been the law of this land for decades. If the American people wanted them changed they have had dozens and dozens of elections to put folks in power to change / revoke them. They have not done so. That my friend is all that is needed to keep them under the legal control they are now.

Democracy is a tyranny of the majority. 51% of the people saying machine guns aught to be outlawed, does not mean it's fair to bar the other 49% from having them. This is why this country was founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. So that the views of many would not infringe on the rights of the few.

Again if you OK with fully auto weapons having little to no regulation at which level of weapon system do you draw the line? Or do you draw it at all?

Why should there be a line?

 

[Ruggles]

I have answered why I am perfectly fine with the current restrictions on fully auto weapons.

TexasRifleman ~ I still await your reply as to where you draw the line.
CrRoMo ~ I still await your reply as to where you draw the line.
Vern Humphrey ~ I still await your reply as to where you draw the line.

 

[Ruggles]

Why should there be a line?"

The overall safety of society comes to mind.

SAMs ok with you?
Main battle tanks?
Apache attack helicopters?
F22s?

Where oh where do you draw the line, answer up.

 

[TexasRifleman]

TexasRifleman ~ I still await your reply as to where you draw the line.

I've already explained this to you, but you're not getting it so I'll do it again, but it's making me tired.

What I personally believe isn't much relevant, since the chances of it happening are almost none, but I believe there is no difference between a machinegun, a bolt action rifle, or a pillow in the hands of a law abiding citizen and a law abiding citizen should be able to purchase all 3 with the same ease.

Now, that's not going to happen but what Scalia said in Heller is important. He opened the door to killing Hughes and it's entirely possible that Hughes could be reversed over the next few years.

As I said before, but you think I just make stuff up so you probably don't believe it, only 2 crimes have been committed with a legally owned machinegun since 1934, and one of the criminals was a cop. That's a pretty good provable factual record of legal machine guns posing no threat at all to society.

SAMs ok with you?
Main battle tanks?
Apache attack helicopters?
F22s?

Where oh where do you draw the line, answer up.

The more you post the less knowledgeable you sound.

There are already today, in private hands, F104 Starfighters, Main Battle Tanks, Cobra attack helicopters, F4 Phantoms, Chain Guns, there's an F15 that's close to being flyable, there's countless MiGs, lots of F5's, there's an A-10 that's nearly airworthy. There are 20mm cannons galore, 40mm grenades and grenade launchers for sale. Not much short of suitcase nukes isn't already owned by law abiding citizens in the US today.

All those things are for sale, legal to own and legal to use already. You're spouting off about the dangers of legalizing things that are already legal and out there.

If they are so damn dangerous to society how come I never read about them being used in a crime?

 

[General Geoff]

SAMs? Sure.
Main battle tanks, why not?
Apache attack helicopters, again, sure.

I'm fairly certain all of these ARE legal to own by private citizens today, with proper tax stamps and forms. Finding one for sale would be hard in the case of an Apache, but if you could find one that's being sold legally, or even if you built a clone yourself, you should be nice & legal. The autocannons and any other machine guns mounted on them would be the sticky part due to the '86 machine gun ban.

F22s are fairly new tech, good luck convincing Lockheed to sell you one. If they did though, I don't see why it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be legal to own one.

 

[Ruggles]

"What I personally believe isn't much relevant, since the chances of it happening are almost none, but I believe there is no difference between a machinegun, a bolt action rifle, or a pillow in the hands of a law abiding citizen and a law abiding citizen should be able to purchase all 3 with the same ease."

Very unclear answer but I take it you draw the line as maybe crew served fully automatic weapons? So you accept the need to control larger weapon system within the legal system right?

"As I said before, but you think I just make stuff up so you probably don't believe it, only 2 crimes have been committed with a legally owned machinegun since 1934, and one of the criminals was a cop. That's a pretty good provable factual record of legal machine guns posing no threat at all to society."

I see only 2 huh, wonder if that could be proof that the laws do indeed work? Cause I would venture to guess that if fully auto weapons were not controlled as they are there could have been a wee bit more of them used in crimes than you stated above.

 

[SuperNaut]

The overall safety of society comes to mind.

SAMs ok with you?
Main battle tanks?
Apache attack helicopters?
F22s?

Where oh where do you draw the line, answer up.

This old saw?

The line is where it always has been, generally non-crewed served weapons. However there are private citizens who do own tanks, helicopters, and jets. The law is currently quite vague on this and it doesn't seem to cause "society" any harm, how can that be? In reality, it doesn't really matter, regulation of these devices is simply the upkeep, expense, and logistical complications; IOW they are a PITA.

 

[Ruggles]

"SAMs? Sure.
Main battle tanks, why not?
Apache attack helicopters, again, sure.

I'm fairly certain all of these ARE legal to own by private citizens today, with proper tax stamps and forms. Finding one for sale would be hard in the case of an Apache, but if you could find one that's being sold legally, or even if you built a clone yourself, you should be nice & legal. The autocannons and any other machine guns mounted on them would be the sticky part due to the '86 machine gun ban.

F22s are fairly new tech, good luck convincing Lockheed to sell you one. If they did though, I don't see why it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be legal to own one."

OK I see. So if I was say an wealthy business man who made millions importing "goods" from Asia and South America I should be able to purchase a small nuclear device from one of the former Soviet republics if I wanted to?

Are you OK with that as well? Simple yes or no will do.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Very unclear answer but I take it you draw the line as maybe crew served fully automatic weapons? So you accept the need to control larger weapon system within the legal system right?

No, crew served weapons are legal to own as well, today.

see only 2 huh, wonder if that could be proof that the laws do indeed work? Cause I would venture to guess that if fully auto weapons were not controlled as they are there could have been a wee bit more of them used in crimes than you stated above.

And again, since you only read part of what I post apparently...

I do not believe that NFA will be reversed but I do believe Hughes will be.

Reversing Hughes changes nothing about the purchase and use of machine guns, merely lowers the price.

OK I see. So if I was say an wealthy business man who made millions importing "goods" from Asia and South America I should be able to purchase a small nuclear device from one of the former Soviet republics if I wanted to?

Are you OK with that as well? Simple yes or no will do.

So this is where I flat out say that it's my opinion you are a card carrying member of Brady because this is their standard thing, go straight to the nukes.

You are arguing the absurd since you don't have anything else. But that's OK, there are real factual answers even for your absurd stuff.

The Second Amendment covers "arms". Most legal scholars today agree that things like Sarin gas, Nukes, Anthrax etc are not arms, they are "weapons of mass destruction" or whatever you want to call it. Whatever you call them, they are clearly outside what would normally be considered an "arm".

Crew served weapons are certainly arms, and they are legal to own.

But these WMD type devices probably don't meet the definition of "arms". And in Heller, Scalia said that a possible test was "in common use at the time".

So, suitcase nukes, not being in common use by the military, don't fall under the Second, but machine guns and grenades most certainly do.

 

[SuperNaut]

Slippery slope fallacy Ruggles.

 

[General Geoff]

OK I see. So if I was say an wealthy business man who made millions importing "goods" from Asia and South America I should be able to purchase a small nuclear device from one of the former Soviet republics if I wanted to?

Are you OK with that as well? Simple yes or no will do.

Short answer: Yes.


Have fun using that nuke, if you don't know how to maintain it, it'll be an expensive paperweight in short order.

Also, I'm pretty sure you could do that anyway, regardless of this country's laws. Good luck importing it though.

 

[Lou McGopher]

It obviously DOESN'T means exactly what it says. Because there are too many people with too many interpretations of what it says. This is starting to sound like the Far Religious Right who "THINK" that the Bible is very clear in what IT says.

"(the right of the People to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed" (the phrase to which I was referring), does mean exactly what it says. The words are plain English. The meaning of the words are available in any dictionary. They are simple words, with unambiguous definitions, strung together in a logical and grammatically proper sequence. The only way the exact meaning of that phrase could be misunderstood is through abject ignorance or willful disregard of the English language.

Granted, I can understand confusion over the rest of the amendment... up to a point. Because speech mannerism have changed a little since it was written, the militia clause could be confusing to some. But that is easily cleared up by a little research into language usage of the time period, and into the intentions of the framers as documented elsewhere in their own writings.

The evidence for the RKBA being protected by the amendment as an individual right is overwhelming. At this point, those who continue to argue otherwise do so out of sheer stubbornness, not because of any inexplicable vagueness of the wording.

Now, the "subject to reasonable restrictions" is baseless nonsense. That is the judges legislating from the bench. And it shouldn't surprise anyone. We should absolutely expect this sort of attitude toward not just the right of self-defense, but toward all aspects of our lives, for the simple fact that you will never hear the state say, "We have absolutely no authority to regulate this activity." Ceding power to the people is not in the government's playbook.