very irritating discussion

[MtnCreek]

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.

Innocent: Might have, but I think he was already dead by the time the SCOTUS ruled.

BasicBlur, You make a very good point.

If someone states that 'military type' like FA's should not be had by ordinary citizens, they do not understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.

 

[youngda9]

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.

This is an amazing leap of logic....or should I say disconnect.

Let's re-write your last paragraph:
The definition of "Speech" has changed, Technology has gotten vastly more variable, from Gutenberg style presses to the internet which can provide information to millions in milliseconds. The press, as referenced is the internet and television 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 telephones and Ipads available to buy at your Joe Schmoe Radio Shack for what their actual cost is, because any crazy would be able to afford and to provide information toa crowd on another continent in milliseconds. If the constitution were written in modern day I sure hope that the founding fathers wouldn't allow just anyone to own a laptop computer for example, it'd be total anarchy if that were the case

 

[Owen Sparks]

The Second Amendment was written just after an all volunteer citizen militia threw off the government. The purpose of codifying the right to keep and bear arms into law was to make sure that the new government would never have any power over personal arms. Just like the First Amendment guarantees that the government would have no power over religion.

 

[youngda9]

^^ Military grade arms were necessary for the overthrow.

 

[Justin]

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.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Contrary to your claim, the current prices for NFA Title II firearms is not a simple issue of "supply and demand."

Rather, it's an almost perfect example of how governmental meddling and regulation can fundamentally distort the economics of a given market.

It's one thing to claim that you don't have a problem with the laws as they currently exist; it's something else entirely to claim that deliberate distortions of the market undertaken by the government in order to infringe on a fundamental civil liberty is just a matter of "supply and demand."

 

[Axel Larson]

I have tried to talk to these people but they usually get annoyed at me and walk even though I stay calm and use logic. These people do not like logic it goes against their beliefs and therefor they do not want to use logic. I am one of those people that loves to discuss topics. I would say you did the right thing though if the person is getting to you it is best to walk away, my fiance does the same thing when she gets annoyed at some telling her how to live her life.

 

[22-rimfire]

This is fundamentally incorrect. Contrary to your claim, the current prices for NFA Title II firearms is not a simple issue of "supply and demand."

Rather, it's an almost perfect example of how governmental meddling and regulation can fundamentally distort the economics of a given market.

It's one thing to claim that you don't have a problem with the laws as they currently exist; it's something else entirely to claim that deliberate distortions of the market undertaken by the government in order to infringe on a fundamental civil liberty is just a matter of "supply and demand."

This is correct. Why would a "machine gun" cost $15,000 when it may be exactly the same as a semi-auto rifle except for the select fire switch and bolt. They should actually cost less. The price is all about government meddling in the marketplace and they have severly restricted the supply.

 

[MtnCreek]

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.

Yes, it is Supply & Demand. Now dig into your dictionary and look up Capitalism, Fascism and Socialism and it will become clear very quickly which of the before mentioned applies in this case.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

youngda9, that was an excellent point you made.
I agree that some people just don't follow logic.

 

[gym]

It really is an exercise in futility, to ban anything when you stop and think about history. While watching the history channel the other day, or Nat-geo, there was as episode on The Mongols and Genghis Khan has been branded the greatest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.
He managed to kill 40 million people without a rifle or a pistol. So the greatest murderer of documented history, "without getting into biblical stuff" killed more folks without 1 gun. They may have had cannons by then I'm sure they had invented gunpowder.
So how does one or how can one look into the future when you are trying to set up a country, while doing 50 more things that would probably boggle the mind, and take everything that could possibly happen in the future into consideration, unless you use a broad stroke, more of a guideline, and as time goes on, I would think they assumed we would be intelligent enough to figure this stuff out ourselves. It's not like they had a staff of thousands helping them out with a hundred lawyers and experts on retainer to investigate every possible thing that might happen, and a science dep’t that could give them accurate understanding as to where we would be technologically in a couple hundred years.
They only had the use of heir minds and what existed up to that point. I think they did a heck of a job considering the circumstances. But they had to be careful not to make it too specific in order to allow for changes to take place that they could not guess .
So they gave us a general guideline, kind of like the ten commandments without the religious aspect, "if you believe in that stuff, but it fits the purpose of my point.
Targeted to a different end. But a set of guidelines to go by to keep us within a moral and ethical, balanced guide so as not to allow what happened before to happen again. I think that you can twist and turn anything to make it suit your point, But it says what it says. The right to bear arms was written that way for a reason. They didn't know if we would need 1 gun or 100, so they left it up to us to decide. These guys were not able to see the future, just learn from the past. They knew what didn't work before so they may have worked out from there. Adding and subtracting things while they discussed them until they came up with the best that they could. Then the put it on paper, and figured we would be smart enough to figure out the rest. That's the only way I can see it having been done. So sometimes when people take things too literally, it may not be exactly what they meant. Things like "the people, meant "all of the people, there is no plural, unless you watch the old Zorro movies, where he says the peoples", now you can say the peoples rights, but not the "peoples have the right" . The people can be singular or plural in some cases. So when it comes to the people have the right, it means all the people. To bear arms, well if you are talking about all the people then you must say arms, since all the people cannot be expected to share 1 gun. But it might mean whatever you define it to mean. That's why they wrote it that way, for us to translate in a changing world according to what was necessary at the time. I don't think anyone really thinks that if it's ok to have 1 gun, then it's not ok to have 2 guns, Unless you work a 1 police plaza in NYC. The machine gun is just another gun and the more mystery and mystique that surrounds something the more frightening it becomes to those who don't understand it. Just ask the Mongols or the Huns, they would kill you with a coffee pot. It's the intent of the person not the gun. They were slaughtering millions of people in the dark ages without machine guns. The Mongol leader made it to 60. With all that armor and horseback riding and killing from town to town, country to country. It must have been the cardio.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The running joke at the Knob Creek annual machine gun shoot is that it is a convention for millionaires.

Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? That only a very select group of wealthy people should be allowed to own the nations service weapon? Or did they intend for the common people to be allowed military arms in case the government ever got too powerful and oppressive again?

 

[azmjs]

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.

And if you were issued three (more than one, plural, "arms") by the state, your right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, because you would both keep and bear arms.

The second amendment protects our right to be armed, not our right to indulge in the hobby of gun collecting.

 

[azmjs]

The running joke at the Knob Creek annual machine gun shoot is that it is a convention for millionaires.

Is this what the Founding Fathers intended? That only a very select group of wealthy people should be allowed to own the nations service weapon? Or did they intend for the common people to be allowed military arms in case the government ever got too powerful and oppressive again?

Machine guns are toys for collectors.

If you want a weapon to fight off attackers, you can go to wal mart or one of tens of thousands of other stores and buy one this afternoon.

 

[azmjs]

This is fundamentally incorrect. Contrary to your claim, the current prices for NFA Title II firearms is not a simple issue of "supply and demand."

Rather, it's an almost perfect example of how governmental meddling and regulation can fundamentally distort the economics of a given market.

It's one thing to claim that you don't have a problem with the laws as they currently exist; it's something else entirely to claim that deliberate distortions of the market undertaken by the government in order to infringe on a fundamental civil liberty is just a matter of "supply and demand."

What is it that this supposed meddling has affected?

The supply...

Hence, supply and demand.

The same is true of the cost of illegal drugs, the limits on their supply causes the price to rise far, far above the cost of manufacture.

 

[M-Cameron]

And if you were issued three (more than one, plural, "arms") by the state, your right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, because you would both keep and bear arms.

The second amendment protects our right to be armed, not our right to indulge in the hobby of gun collecting.

and what if the govt' standard civilain issue is a .22lr rifle, a .22lr pistol, and a .410 shotgun...

..while the army is rocking 5.56/ 7.62/ 12 gage/ .50 cal......all while wearing ballistic armour.........

that would make it a pretty uneven fight in my eyes......that is the purpose of the 2A, so that the civilians can match the govt'/ army if need the need arises

ide rather not have the govt' telling me which guns i can use to fight them with.

 

[M-Cameron]

Machine guns are toys for collectors.

If you want a weapon to fight off attackers, you can go to wal mart or one of tens of thousands of other stores and buy one this afternoon.

so why isnt the military buying semi-automatic firearms only

last i checked, they favored select fire M-16's for their standard issue

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

This quote from the Declaration of Independence shows the founders thoughts on this subject. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve the people's ability to "throw off such government."

Yet, somehow, nowadays it is acceptable for the government tell us which weapons we are allowed to fight them with? Um, no.

Any restrictions on private ownership of weapons is incongruent with the spirit and letter of both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

If someone is diligent enough to amass the wealth capable of building a tactical nuclear weapon, by God, let them have it. With that much money, you could bribe enough people to skirt the rules to own one anyway. Heck, just buy your own small country with that kind of capital.

The second amendment scales up just fine. 155mm howitzer? Can't use it to rob the liquor store. Plus, it takes more than one person to load it. And if you don't have the riflemen to defend it, a single cop could stop a howitzer crew with a pistol.

 

[22-rimfire]

What is it that this supposed meddling has affected?

The supply...

Hence, supply and demand.

Except that the government controls the supply not the free market. It is government meddling. The cost should be about the same as your standard semi-auto AR which you can buy at many gunshops any day of the week, not pay a $200 fee and wait for 6-months for approval.

 

[azmjs]

so why isnt the military buying semi-automatic firearms only

last i checked, they favored select fire M-16's for their standard issue

The military also employs nuclear arms, fully automatic grenade launchers, shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles, and a number of other weapons which never belong in private hands.

You're perfectly capable of keeping and bearing arms without a machine gun or one of the devices listed above.

Ten of millions of Americans keep and bear arms every day.

 

[azmjs]

and what if the govt' standard civilain issue is a .22lr rifle, a .22lr pistol, and a .410 shotgun...

..while the army is rocking 5.56/ 7.62/ 12 gage/ .50 cal......all while wearing ballistic armour.........

that would make it a pretty uneven fight in my eyes......that is the purpose of the 2A, so that the civilians can match the govt'/ army if need the need arises

ide rather not have the govt' telling me which guns i can use to fight them with.

22lr weapons are largely ineffective for the constitutionally protected role of self defense in the home.

If you feel that the weapons you are permitted to own are ineffective, you can seek redress in the courts.

More importantly though, what's it matter? Lets say that the government issues each person a military rifle in the calibers you listed, a shotgun, etc, and banned ownership of any other firearm under severe penalty. What you posted doesn't at all dispute the fact that such a situation would easily pass second-amendment muster.

 

[azmjs]

Except that the government controls the supply not the free market. It is government meddling. The cost should be about the same as your standard semi-auto AR which you can buy at many gunshops any day of the week, not pay a $200 fee and wait for 6-months for approval.

The constitution does not guarantee a free market. Regulation of commerce is one of the specifically enumerated powers of the federal government.

 

[M-Cameron]

The military also employs nuclear arms, fully automatic grenade launchers, shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles, and a number of other weapons which never belong in private hands.

You're perfectly capable of keeping and bearing arms without a machine gun or one of the devices listed above.

Ten of millions of Americans keep and bear arms every day.

like i said before, the 2A doesnt guarantee my right to a rifle, handgun, shotgun......the word "gun" is no where in the 2A........it guarantees my right to WEAPONS, it and last i checked, there was no limiting factor written in to the 2A ......nothing that says i cannot own a grenade launcher.

If you feel that the weapons you are permitted to own are ineffective, you can seek redress in the courts.

so the govt, tells me what weapons i can own.......and if i dont like the weapons i have.....i have to go ask for better ones.....

......what if they say "no".

More importantly though, what's it matter? Lets say that the government issues each person a military rifle in the calibers you listed, a shotgun, etc, and banned ownership of any other firearm under severe penalty. What you posted doesn't at all dispute the fact that such a situation would easily pass second-amendment muster.

now ive never needed to take out a tank, or an aircraft..........but ide imagine that would be pretty difficult to do with a .223.......hell, that would be difficult to do with a .50

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

@M-Cameron

I heard an M1 tank got damaged by a DSHK .50 cal awhile back, those rounds pack a punch they do. On a vehicle like a tank it is all about shot placement, you fire where the armour is thinnest or nonexistent. If you try and fire an M82A2 at the frontal armour, of course it isn't going to do much good. I personally would like to see what would happen if a .50 shell went down the muzzle of the turret with an HE round loaded...

 

[happygeek]

The constitution does not guarantee a free market. Regulation of interstate commerce is one of the specifically enumerated powers of the federal government.

Fixed it for you. Of course the Feds have been overstepping their constitutional authority in that regard for quite some time. This will get challenged sooner or later from numerous angles, not just on firearms issues. Of course, I won't be shocked if and when federal courts rule in their own favor.

I'd also love to hear why you think a Mk 19 doesn't belong in civilian hands. As has been pointed out by other posters, at the time the 2A was written entire ships of war were in private hands.

 

[M-Cameron]

dreamcast,

yeah, and .22lr have killed plenty people...that doesn't mea. I want to rely on one to fight a war with.