very irritating discussion

[kingcheese]

not trying to make any enemys, but i agree with the other guy, to an extent

im not saying we should be limited to black powder rifles, and im not saying that there shouldnt be newly manufactured civilian full auto rifles, what i am saying is do you really want m2s being available to the general public? lets face it, there are some people that could mess up with a 10/22 and get themselves hurt bad

i think that 22 caliber and pistol caliber automatics should be produced for the civilian market at a reasonable price, but... its not gonna happen anytime soon

as far as the right to bear arms goes. im perfectly happy with my shotgun, and i think you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you absolutely have to have an automatic rifle to do the job, however it would be usefull in the zombie invasion that is bound to happen

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

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

Why not take it a step farther.

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

Or

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.

"Machine guns and semi-automatics 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 a single shot firearm this afternoon."

These arguments would lead us down a slippery slope to lose our second amendment rights completely.

 

[M-Cameron]

im not saying we should be limited to black powder rifles, and im not saying that there shouldnt be newly manufactured civilian full auto rifles, what i am saying is do you really want m2s being available to the general public? lets face it, there are some people that could mess up with a 10/22 and get themselves hurt bad

so EVERYONE must be subject to the lowest common denominator.......?

because someone might hurt themselves....no one can have them...


this kind of thinking is why we were never allowed to use actual scissors in school, and were stuck with those plastic "safety scissors" that didnt cut anything.

 

[MtnCreek]

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

Yes, but it is forbidden, by the Constitution, for the government to infringe on the God Given right of the people to Keep and Bare Arms. The 2A was Not written to protect the right of the people to go to the 1792 version of Wal-Mart to buy a hunting rifle (tool of the times, not a weapon of war).

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

Let’s not confuse Keep and Bare Arms. The 2A protects the right of the people to Keep AND Bare Arms. There’s a reason the Founding Fathers used both words.

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

I’m not up to speed on the courts. Please tell me how I go about doing this. Seems to me the only option I have available would be to break the current laws by obtaining an illegal weapon, then challenging any criminal charges all the way up to the Supreme Court. I’d say that would be about 10 years of Hell (if I prevailed).

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

The responsibility of the Congress to regulate INTERSTATE commerce can NOT infringe on the rights of the people as protected in the Constitution. How about the 1A? How about the 4A? Can the congress take your God Given rights because they feel that your rights affect commerce?

 

[MtnCreek]

I think I’m going to have a freaking aneurism if I hear any more crap from people defending our government letting us have Some firearms and why that should be enough for us. Maybe I should right Congress a big Thank You letter for their benevolence!

 

[BBQLS1]

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.

The definition of arms has not changed in relation to it's intent in the 2A.

^^ Military grade arms were necessary for the overthrow.

This is why it hasn't changed. The intent of the 2A is so that we the people are sufficiently armed so we may overthrow the government or defend against other governments if need be. That hasn't changed.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I would ignore Dreamcast, afterall he wants to move to Canada/Hong Kong with a dual citizenship cause apparently he doesn't like the US. He actually thought you could own a gun in Hong Kong to.

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.

There is a third one, don't have a link but I believe its somewhere in the NFA section. It was a asian man with a MAC 10 and a suppressor.

 

[happygeek]

The asian man with the mac10 and the cop are the two cases I'd seen.

 

[ErikO]

Personally, I think they were more concerned with the government falling back on tyranny than they were about advancements in firearms technology.

That is really the concern of the 2nd Amendment.

As far as Liberals who fear guns go, invite them to the range and let them shoot off your .22lr weapon of choice. That will be the best use of your range fees ever. Once they realize that putting holes in paper is fun and that guns won't hurt them they become a bit easier to deal with. If they are Female, find a good range that has a Ladies' First Shots program and pay for them to go. If they are not Female, pay for them to go to a First Shots program. If you live in/near St Louis, I can give you a good range for that.

When/if you disagree with their politics after that, just invite them to the range again. Change the conversation and change the person. Besides, once they get bit by the gun/shooting bug, you'll have some built-in common ground. You may even end up with someone that calls you up to go shooting.

 

[Cop Bob]

The Comedian Ron White said it best...."You Can't Fix Stupid"...

 

[Justin]

azmjs, what sort of things would you consider to be an infringement on the second amendment?

 

[W.E.G.]

"Arms" means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Heller makes it clear that arms means a heck of a lot more than smoothbore flintlocks.

Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.

Evidently, the foil in this case should stick with pulling hoses.
He clearly reads no law.

 

[azmjs]

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.



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".




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

No limiting factor needs to be written into the second amendment. The 2A prevents the government from outlawing arms. It is not a license to indulge in the hobby of gun collecting.

The federal government, by way of its authority to regulate commerce, can quite easily regulate the number and type of weapons you have, so long as you are still permitted to keep and bear arms.

You may wish things were different, but you will end up disappointed.

If the government says "no," then it has come time for you to learn that ancient lesson- you can't always get what you want.

 

[azmjs]

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.

Very little commerce in the modern America is not "interstate" in nature.

The interstate commerce clause gives the national government broad powers.

If you feel differently, the judicial branch exists to hear and then answer any questions you might bring up.

 

[azmjs]

Why not take it a step farther.

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

Or


"Machine guns and semi-automatics 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 a single shot firearm this afternoon."

These arguments would lead us down a slippery slope to lose our second amendment rights completely.

When you realize the truth of this fact, then you can begin to really understand how to protect gun ownership in America.

It is only by maintaining a pro-gun consensus. The second amendment cannot save your gun collection, it might not even be able to save your semi-automatic guns.

Only an America unwilling to choose to outlaw such guns can accomplish that, and you have the power to help ensure that such an America continues from generation to generation.

 

[azmjs]

azmjs, what sort of things would you consider to be an infringement on the second amendment?

Unequivocally- making it impossible or unreasonably difficult to acquire or keep a gun or ammunition for it, specifically handguns for self defense in the home, rifles and shotguns for hunting and shooting sports, etc- pretty much as laid out by Justice Scalia in the Heller decision.


"Infringe" comes from the latin meaning "to break." As far as the law goes, it is essentially an yes/no proposition. Either a person can keep and bear arms, and therefore his right to do so is not infringed, or else he cannot, and therefore it is.

This is the opinion enshrined in Heller and supported by just about all American legal tradition and jurisprudence.

Bear in mind that up until the McDonald decision, the "shall not be infringed" clause of the second amendment did not apply to state and local governments, which were perfectly free to infringe gun ownership within their jurisdictions.

As part of the enormous shift away from anti-gun politics, jurisprudence, and opinion that has occurred over the last ten years or so in the US, this is no longer the case.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

@Fivetwoseven

You can, there are applications and an HK Rifle association. Maybe you should try contributing to the discussion rather than try pissing me off.

People are taking what I'm saying out of context, I just think that unregulated automatics are asking for trouble, especially if you wish to outlaw background checks and the like.

Guns are good, yes, a right, yes, but anarchy of guns would be very bad. Anything without minimal, needed regulation eventually turns sour, just look at the mess we're in right now. You know who we have to blame? The wall street pawns we elected who deregulated derivative markets, mortgages and the like. (I'm just making an analogy, not throwing politics in the mix) If you look at our economy now, think about what would happen if we swept away all gun laws, it would have the opposite effect.

Some laws serve a purpose, other do not, such as Hughes, portions of the GCA, 922(r),etc. But some laws are not unreasonable, such as the 4473/NICS laws, minimum age etc.

 

[CapnMac]

Well, as to the intent of the Founders, and what the Second Amendment was to be understood to mean at the time, there is little to compare to Tench Coxe:

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

Amen
(emphasis added)

This is pretty clear to me. Madison and Jefferson were of similar mind, if not in as definitive of prose.

 

[ThePunisher'sArmory]

Trying to argue with an idiot is a waste of your time because they wear you down and beat you with experience (of their being ignorant).

Folks who are completely devoid of logic can not be convinced of anything because they do not understand logic, do not even recognize logic and have very thick, dense and hard craniums.

Don't EVEN waste good air on them.

Now thats funny .........and true!

 

[Sam Cade]

@Fivetwoseven

You can, there are applications and an HK Rifle association. Maybe you should try contributing to the discussion rather than try pissing me off.

Ive read the relevant laws.

You can only have possession of the firearms at the whim of law enforcement and you are subject to whatever restrictions local law enforcement wants to put on you, specifically as an individual.


Realistically, in Hong Kong you won't be allowed to have the firearm (or ammunition) in your possession anywhere else than your "shooting club"

...and there are government mandated storage fees.
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/eng/home.htm?SearchTerm=cap 238

Owning a single rimfire rifle and a brick of ammo will cost you $720 per month (note that this is HK$ not US$) if you managed to bribe the right person in order to get permission to have it in the first place if I am reading this correctly.
Ge caught with a single cartridge outside of the range and bam!! 10 years in PRC PMITA prison.
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_...341730C0A26A3C1EC8256483002880DA?OpenDocument

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Sam, I did look that up too. At this point however I don't think I'll own guns in HK, considering it is much safer than, say Dallas. Last year stats:

Dallas, Texas: Population : 1,188,204. Number of murders last year 248. number of burglaries 23,184

Hong Kong: Population 7,055,071. Number of murders last year 35, number of burgalries 4,543

I'm not as hardcore about guns anyways, as long as I can buy as many bolt guns, and a few choice semi autos, I really could care less, and since I'm not going to conceal my Enfield, whether or not those countries allow CC is a nonissue. To each his own, I say.


Back onto the thread, let me make you all aware of something: Even if most of the public didn't own guns we would have a good chance of overthrowing a government. Why? Outnumber them 100+ to 1. Also, think about our military, law enforcement. How many people do you know who would willingly fight for a government over the people? I guarantee that at least 1 in 4 would desert the military and law enforcement if a rebellion began.

 

[basicblur]

Also, think about our military, law enforcement. How many people do you know who would willingly fight for a government over the people? I guarantee that at least 1 in 4 would desert the military and law enforcement if a rebellion began.

Your guarantee is worth exactly what the people paid for it...

I see LE doing things every day I consider "a government over the people"-excessive use of SWAT teams by every agency for any whim comes to mind.

If the public has no way to oppose tyranny, you'd probably be surprised at how many LE and military would 'just follow orders'.
Faced with the spectre of armed resistence...now that's probably one BIG line a lot of 'em wouldn't cross.

 

[JustinJ]

" I guarantee that at least 1 in 4 would desert the military and law enforcement if a rebellion began."

History offers no guarantee of this. It generally only happens when people are starving.

 

[Sam Cade]

Sam, I did look that up too. At this point however I don't think I'll own guns in HK, considering it is much safer than, say Dallas. Last year stats:

Dallas, Texas: Population : 1,188,204. Number of murders last year 248. number of burglaries 23,184

Hong Kong: Population 7,055,071. Number of murders last year 35, number of burgalries 4,543

What is the point of this comparison?
Dallas has one of the highest crime rates in the US.

The entire state of New Hampshire only has 10-15 murders a year.
In 2009 the entire state of Vermont had 4.

A better comparison for Hong Kong would be, say, New York City.

Hong Kong: Population 7,055,071. Number of murders last year 35,number of burglaries 4,543

New York Cityopulation 8,220,196 Number of Murders (for 2007)
stands at 6/100k (like 480 or so) with 254/100k burglaries.

 

[happygeek]

Very little commerce in the modern America is not "interstate" in nature.

The interstate commerce clause gives the national government broad powers.

Again, the government's own lawyers in U.S. vs Miller argued that

The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.

If he'd have sawed off the barrel and not crossed state lines the Feds would have had no say.

If the Constitution's authors had really intended for the Federal government to regulate any and all commerce, why would they have specified

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

instead of just saying that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce, as you stated?

The silliness that is the NFA may very well be constitutional, but the government's own lawyers argued it applied because the defendant crossed a state line with his creation. If you were to grow marijuana in your backyard and sell it to your neighbor, the Feds have no say. If you sold it over a state line, then they would. This is one of the angles that is about to come up with the Feds overstepping of the commerce clause. Another issue that has already come up and is currently in court is Obamacare.

You still haven't said exactly why you think the NFA and Hughes were such great ideas, except that they turned automatics into something only the rich can [legally] own. They're great ideas because they're elitist?

You are right about two things, you can't always get what you want and ultimately the 2nd Amendment doesn't safeguard your right to own guns. There's plenty of do gooders and moral crusaders out there intent on taking away individual rights for "the greater good" and there will always be government officials that are willing to overstep the Constitution. Why not, after all they'll be long out of office by the time their law gets shot down.