very irritating discussion

[Dreamcast270mhz]

So let me put it this way, you all think its your way or the highway? All or nothing? The people who say things about automatics and such kind of have a point, how far can we go to say that the founding fathers would've known? We can't really claim that, because most of them didn't even live to see caplocks become popular in 1830, or the Gatling gun or the Henry rifle. So its hard to justify that, personally the founding fathers were brilliant people, but possessing omnipotent foresight to see automatic weapons? Its too long ago now to tell, heck in another 100 years I imagine caseless ammo and palm size rockets will be perfected. Should we have access to these rockets?

But I think there is nothing wrong with automatics, just it doesn't make for a good argument to constantly say that. I think a much better argument is " A capable, educated and responsible person like myself should be able to own and use an automatic weapon, as long as I have a legitimate, legal role intended for it and I make sure nobody comes to harm because of it."

Like it or not, it is not good karma to bad mouth someone and seek to prove them wrong at their statements. Instead, share your point of view in a calm, orderly manner and state why you disagree, and then say "I respect that you have your reasons for differing on this issue." Even if you don't respect it picking fights and pissing people off is not going to further your cause, only make it harder to convince others to support you.

 

[Justin]

The people who say things about automatics and such kind of have a point, how far can we go to say that the founding fathers would've known? We can't really claim that, because most of them didn't even live to see caplocks become popular in 1830, or the Gatling gun or the Henry rifle. So its hard to justify that, personally the founding fathers were brilliant people, but possessing omnipotent foresight to see automatic weapons?

http://tinyurl.com/6b9q2ya

Furthermore, by your reasoning, if technologies not envisioned by the founding fathers aren't covered under the bill of rights, then in order to remain rationally consistent, you'd have to admit that communication disseminated via digital offset printing, television, the internet, personal computers, cell phones, iPads, walkie-talkies, etc. isn't protected by the first amendment.

 

[moonpie]

the problem with the antis is that they're almost as pigheaded as i am. one answer that seems to work best when they ask "Why would you want or need a gun?" i say "Because people like me out there with guns"

 

[Sam Cade]

The people who say things about automatics and such kind of have a point, how far can we go to say that the founding fathers would've known?

Their intent was for the average group of armed citizens to be able to have parity of force with regular soldiers. This is why they used the word "Arms" a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense and not muskets.

Its too long ago now to tell, heck in another 100 years I imagine caseless ammo and palm size rockets will be perfected. Should we have access to these rockets?

Sure. Why not?
State of the art in firearms is 100 years old now.

A capable, educated and responsible person like myself should be able to own and use an automatic weapon, as long as I have a legitimate, legal role intended for it and I make sure nobody comes to harm because of it."

THat has already been defined and it trumps everything else.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Hey Justin, I'm not trying to pick this apart with you, but there are some differences between the two that have to be recognized:

1st amendment text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Press is generally understood as a news service, and this definition has not changed, the medium is different but otherwise unchanged.

Speech is understood as what a person says, in writing or speaking, this too has not changed, as I am technically "writing" this text in a readable form for anyone to read.

The Second Amendment text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The definition of "Arms" has changed, was weaponry has gotten vastly more variable, from repeating arms to thermobaric/nuclear weapons which can kill thousands in seconds. The Pucke Gun, as referenced is a machine gun in the modern sense, but its impossible to tell whether or not any of the founding fathers knew about it, its not like today where we saw China's new stealth aircraft and in days time everyone knew about it, and neither has it seemed to have been in regular, prolonged use by any military. Now I'm sure you wouldn't want RPG-7s available to buy at your Joe Schmoe gun store for what their actual cost is, because any crazy would be able to afford and to blow apart a crowd in seconds. If the constitution were written in modern day I sure hope that the founding fathers wouldn't allow just anyone to own a GAU-12 for example, it'd be total anarchy if that were the case.

 

[buck460XVR]

I've yet to read anywhere in the OPs original post or in follow-up posts about the confrontation being anti Second Amendment. It seems the discussion was more on why someone would want or need a fully automatic weapon. I see the same thing at the range all the time. Guys that have hunted their whole lives.........and are ardent gun enthusiasts, that shake their heads and grumble when someone shows up with a EBR with a high-cap mag. These folks are far from anti-gun and are pro-second amendment....as long as it pertains to their type of firearms. They see no reason why any civilian would need a rifle with more than a 5 round mag or a handgun..... semi or revolver than holds more than seven rounds. These type of gun owners we do not need to alienate, belittle or get in their face, we just need to tolerate, and accept them as bullheaded, or maybe a little old fashioned. Cause if the time comes, they will back us and chose guns over no guns.......unlike true antis. But this is just my 2 cents.

 

[Strykervet]

By his logic the 1A shouldnt apply to TVs, phones and internet because our founders couldnt predict satellites. Only old Gutenberg style presses.

And I dont base my toy purchases on need. If I want it I buy it, simple as.

That is already an issue. Some states (Michigan?) allow the cops to search and download data from your cell phone during a traffic stop. If they find anything they can get you for, they will. When challenged, they said the Constitution doesn't apply to this.

Ridiculous. If there isn't something done to protect our rights, per future technology, the Constitution will become obsolete, and so will the government that allowed that to happen.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

the Constitution will become obsolete

It already has. Sadly it will never be updated and this country will collapse from inability to agree on interpretation. It was fine 100 years ago, but it should've had at least 9 amendments added to it by 1945, my personal opinion.

 

[Strykervet]

Having fired lots of autos, the MK19 using HEDP being my favorite followed by the M2 Browning (I likie the big ones!), I can say that I really see no use for them outside of novelty. But maybe that is because I had to hump a SAW all over God's Green Creation... Their main purpose is suppresive fire.

Don't get me wrong. I'd own one if I could here and could justify the expense. But it would be a novelty. We just got suppressors here and we're looking foward to getting an Amphibian (integrally suppressed Ruger MkII). Ahhh, quiet fun killing cans in the brush!

To each their own though, as long your own doesn't impede my own I guess it is all fine. I, however, prefer accurate long range semi auto rifles. I know others that will only own traditional wood stock firearms... I have more in common with that guy than I do with any anti.

 

[cambeul41]

It already has. Sadly it will never be updated and this country will collapse from inability to agree on interpretation. It was fine 100 years ago, but it should've had at least 9 amendments added to it by 1945, my personal opinion.

Nine? What nine? Who has the popcorn?

 

[Justin]

So, Dreamcast, via rationalizations and re-defining the meaning of the technologies related to the first amendment, it covers everything.

On the other hand, by applying the same trick in the opposite direction, it's possible to completely rationalize away the meaning of the second amendment.

That's a tremendously cute feat.

The definition of "Arms" has changed,

Not terribly. Arms technology on the individual level hasn't changed much in around a 100 or so years, and certainly hasn't changed in ways that would be unrecognizable to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights. It's certainly not changed in the ways as tremendous and varied as communications technology, and that's pretty clearly covered by the first amendment.

Or, perhaps you'd care to educate all of us as to what particular arms you believe are specifically covered under the second amendment?

 

[22-rimfire]

Some believe that full auto firearms are illegal already. This of course is not correct although they are not allowed in some states as I understand it. That is where the term "machine gun state" came to be.

I also consider full auto pretty much a novelty; a legal novelty. I doubt I could afford to really feed one, but I sure would like to own one. How often would I shoot it? Not very in reality...

I sometimes like to think about my attitudes if I was not on the winning side at the moment (Supreme Court decision). I would probably feel the same way regardless and I think the person that the OP referred to is no different. He just holds an opposite view. This is why I think an intellegent patient discussion on these kinds of things is the way to go rather than a knock-out debate.

 

[45_auto]

A capable, educated and responsible person like myself should be able to own and use an automatic weapon, as long as I have a legitimate, legal role intended for it

And I suppose you have invented something that can tell what a person's "intentions" are when they purchase a firearm?

Too bad you weren't around prior to 9/1/1. All we had to do was not allow anyone on the airplanes who didn't have a legitimate, legal role intended for the flight and the World Trade Center would still be there .....

 

[basicblur]

Thats when he said it....Well! the second amendment was for the weapons of the time!

I’ve also been hit with the slight variation of the above -“do you really think the founding fathers were visionary ‘nuff to foresee modern firearms?”

I usually tell ‘em I’m pretty sure they did not see the wonders of future technology, but to me, the 2nd Amendment is not really ‘bout firearms etc. I also don’t particularly think the 1st is about free speech, or (insert your favorite amendment here) is that much about the particular subject covered in said amendment.

To me, the BORs is more about their understanding of human nature-while the founders did not/could not see technology’s future, they well understood human nature, and have attempted to give us a document spelling out ways we can attempt to overcome man’s (inevitable) failings.

It really makes little use what implements one chooses (quill pen, computer, flintlock, AR15)-it’s all about keeping tyranny in check.

 

[happygeek]

No reason in the world for machine guns to proliferate.

If you want one bad enough, save up and buy one, just like any other toy.

According to the government's own lawyers in U.S. vs Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller) I should be allowed to own a brand new M4A1 as long as I pay the tax. Heck, if an expert witness had shown up to let the SCOTUS know that the military does in fact use short barrel shotguns Miller might very well have been found innocent.

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Exactly how many homicides were committed using a legally owned auto between 1934 and 1986? So far I've located exactly two, and one of those was committed by a cop.

I sure hope that the founding fathers wouldn't allow just anyone to own a GAU-12 for example, it'd be total anarchy if that were the case.

Umm, you do realize how much a GAU-12 costs don't you? Those kind of things kinda self restrict themselves to the very, very well off.

 

[FiremanJim]

And thats why I walk off and do the dishes.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

The argument, and explanation of the second amendment is simply that the people be armed, with no less the armament that the government has. The reason is simple: if the people are to maintain control of the government, they must be equally armed. Technological advancement aside, if the people allow the government to control the armaments of the people, then control of the government can neve be taken back by the people, if necessary (as it was in 1776). Unfortunately, this is the situation we have now. The people no longer have the physical means to control the government.

 

[azmjs]

The '86 MG ban could be overturned very easily by the courts, in fact it has already failed in one circuit.

I'm indifferent as to whether it is rescinded, and against a repeal of the NFA.

The NFA easily passes constitutional muster, and the fact of the matter is, because the tax stamp is not inflation-adjusted, owning an NFA item is cheaper and easier now than at any time in history.

I'm perfectly happy with MGs being toys for serious gun hobbyists.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I never have understood how the federal government can place special taxes on the one item that the Constitution guarantees you the right to posses.

Technology may have changed but the Founding Fathers intended the citizenry to have an unfettered right to posses the same common service weapon that the military uses and today that is the M-16.

 

[azmjs]

The constitution does not guarantee you the right to possess any weapon you want.

It protects your right to keep and bear weapons.

You could be issued a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle, and a sufficient quantity of ammunition by the federal government and forever banned from owning any other weapon, without running afoul of the second amendment.

 

[Justin]

The NFA easily passes constitutional muster, and the fact of the matter is, because the tax stamp is not inflation-adjusted, owning an NFA item is cheaper and easier now than at any time in history.

This might be the case if the supply of legal machine guns hadn't been artificially capped in the 1980s. There's no fundamental reason for why a fully-auto M16 costs 10x as much as a similarly kitted-out semi-auto AR15.

 

[azmjs]

Indeed, just supply-and-demand. I would not shed a tear if the MG ban was overturned. I think that the NFA approval and tax stamp process is entirely sufficient to balance public safety with machine gun ownership.

However, I don't lose any sleep over MGs costing what they do. It is, after all, a toy.

 

[M-Cameron]

The constitution does not guarantee you the right to possess any weapon you want.

It protects your right to keep and bear weapons.

You could be issued a handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle, and a sufficient quantity of ammunition by the federal government and forever banned from owning any other weapon, without running afoul of the second amendment.

ummm....no.

"the right to keep and bear armS......SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

it says arms...plural.....meaning, as many as i want.......it doesnt say arm.

so if the government says you can only have your govt issue gun, that is an infringement on my right to own as many as i want.

also "arms"....armament: The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.

it says nothing about my right to own a muzzle loader, nothing about my right to own a flintlock pistol.........i have a right to own WEAPONS, in which to fight a war.


the purpose of the 2A is to protect the rights of the people to defend themselves, from any foreign invader, or from any tyrannical government.

back in yee olde days......most of the weapons were privately owned, everything from muskets to cannons....all from private citizens.

that is the equivalent of the M-16 and the M1A1 Abrams today.

you cant exactly fight a modern war with a flintlock muzzle loader.........just the same way our founding fathers would have never fought the revolution with spears and arrows.

back in the day, when they wrote the 2A, muzzle loaders/ cannons were the high tech weapons of the day..........why wouldnt the same apply now?


look at the rebels in lybia......that is what the 2A is trying to prevent, rebels having to fight a cause poorly equipped......they are literally having to cobble together weapons with hardware store components.........and scavenged parts.........i wonder how much better they be doing if they were allowed to legally own machine guns, anti-armour weapons, hell maybe a tank or two.....

 

[happygeek]

The NFA does serve as a warning as to why you should never allow the feds to set up a registry in the first place, since all they have to do once one is in place is hold a midnight voice vote to slip an amendment into a large bill that closes said registry.

Some parts of the NFA are just downright silly. Norway, Finland, and New Zealand for example put no restrictions at all on suppressors. I suppose those countries have been just about overrun by silent ninja assassins by now.

Apparently a short barrel AK47 with a folding stock is more concealable than a pistol configuration AK47 like the Draco too.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

I'd have to assume that since our forefathers were smart enough to create our nation they would also be smart enough to know that sometime in the future that weapons would become more advanced.