I think the NFA is Unconstitutional
 

The NFA is an infringement.

All in the interpretation of "Arms" IMO. Some say it is unrestricted in it's meaning and any type of weapon is covered and thus protected. Other would say it has it limitations. I am in the second group, I believe it is not all inclusive in it's meaning just as I believe the 1st A is not all inclusive in it's Freedom Of Speech protection. I have found I am in the minority here on this though. :rofl: The NFA is not a perfect balance but I think it is one that is at least near the "middle" of the debate overall. No doubt it could use a "update" and refinement.

Regardless the NFA has stood the test of time and legal challenges so I would imagine it is here to stay regardless of what any of us believe.

How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

They are "arms".

I've always hated those NFA bastards.

http://www.nfaonline.org/

:supergrin:

Time, place, and manner restrictions on the freedom of speech in the First Amendment prevent parades in your neighborhood at 3 A.M. and people shouting "Fire!" in theaters.

Exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment obviate the necessity for a warrant if police hear somebody bring murdered in the home.

Don't get me wrong, I support very few restrictions on firearms (background checks, a somewhat more thorough - though easier than now - check on full-autos and explosives, and no violent felon ownership really being the only ones). But the "shall not be infringed" argument hasn't been true since the country's near-infancy, and most importantly the courts know this. We need more persuasive arguments than that.

Well, let's discuss that. The colonists, the folks that founded the United States used the same military weapons as the British. Canons and all. So, yes, I am good with all of it.

Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?

But which of these can you keep and bear (carry on or about one's person)?

No offense but that is way to simplistic. The weapons systems of then are not the weapon system of now. Drive down to the local megamart store, look around and tell me you want all of those folks with free access to some RPG7s, SA7s, maybe a surplus T-60, or some nice chemical weapions...or how about your neighbor storing a half dozen 500lb bombs in his garage?

Also the militia of the 1700s were on par with the military arms of the day as the musket and cannon were much more basic weapons than today. That type of balance between the civilian and military of today is simple not achievable. Using it as a point of debate is simply outdated IMO.

Yeah. Bring it all on.

Everyone should own a Nuclear ICBM.

If he had a gas leak in his home it may as well be the same thing. Or if he had a huge fire and a massive store of ammo, it would also be pretty darn similar. We live in danger every day.

So, they had the battle weapons of the day. The average colonial person had the equivalent of a full auto AR at theyir disposal.

If you are terrified of people doing stupid things, then society is going to be a scary scary place for you. Stay off the highways.

All but WMDs. :wavey:

Isn't the NFA based on the wishes of the people back in 1934? They were tired of all the gangster violence (drive-by shootings with Tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns, etc.) and wanted something done about it. If I've got this right (and I'm not saying that I do) then, with all due respect, why are we blaming the Government for something we wanted?

You are trying to keep this thread rolling, but come on.....a Brown Bess was not and is not the equivalent of a FA M16. Their ability to "interact" with society is vastly different.

And yeah a gas explosion could destroy my neighborhood so I live with that danger. I prefer not to add Billie Bob and his surplus bomb collection to that danger :supergrin:

So you are fine with Sgt Bigguns army surplus store selling SA7s on the highway next to say the Orlando airport? Makes that whole flight into Disneyworld with the family a wee bit more exciting no doubt. :whistling:

The government passed that law to try to combat organized crime violence. We see how well that worked. About as effective as prohibiton was. Then when JFK was shot, another knee-jerk government response and more NFA restrictions. Then in the 80's congress decided to ban atuomatic weapons. The "We" was congress.

Everyone, except Albert Shanker. HH

If you've got the money, and want to, and can legally buy a firearm, why not? I really don't think you realize just how much those items cost though. I'm sure a stinger missile is well above $30,000 a pop. And if you have that much money to blow, then go ahead and buy one.

Supposedly Claymores cost $120-ish, plus the cost of the explosives, which probably isn't too cheap.

Artillery would be even more expensive. I think that 40mm machine gun that Red Jacket did, which a civilian can own, was worth like a quarter million. Let alone a 105mm Howitzer.

Supposedly grenades are only $30, so I can see lots of people owning those.

My belief is that the average citizen should have access to the same weapons that their government has access to. Because if you need to ever overthrow them, do you want to be throwing sticks against guys with bazookas?

RICO laws were very effective at combating organized crime. The mafia simply does not exist as it once did in major cities.

Imagine 9/11 with a few dozen SA7s thrown in across the country.....I would guess those boys could have paid $30,000 a pop for them....of course a few fully armed surplus SU-24s would have meant the airliners were not needed to attack NYC....

As I stated earlier the balance between the standing military and armed citizen is not and never will be what it once was. Using that as a reference point is outdated.

Was it ever really balanced? Did minutemen have cannons in their yards? Did citizens in Mass or RI keep man-o-war ships docked in front of their coastal homes?

9/11? Really? Since when was it legal to hijack an aircraft? Hmm? If they didn't care it was illegal to hijack an aircraft, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have cared about a few weapons being illegal too. They were terrorists, trained by Al-Qaeda, if Al-Qaeda wanted them to have a few dozen SA7s, they would've had a few dozen SA7s, legal or not. If they wanted a few fully armed SU-24s, I'm sure they would've done it.

Your argument is the exact same argument anti-gun people. "Well, if guns were illegal, then there wouldn't be any gun violence."

No.

The only thing people these laws are stopping, are the law-abiding citizen. If you haven't noticed, Al-Qaeda has tons of RPGs, if they wanted them here, they would bring them here.

Much more balanced than today, I would say equipment was respectfully balanced between the two parties of the Revolution overall. Nothing on the battlefield (land or sea) was beyond the ability of the militia to realistically counter with the weapons they had. Today that is not the case, with armored warships, aircraft and armored vehicles as well as long range artillery it is a entirely different type of warfare.

In those days you always saw your opponent in battle, not these days.

I've wondered about your avatar OP.
Creepy.

So the only thing keeping those scumbags from downing airliners weekly in America using SA7s is their lack of desire to do so? And they choose to use airliners because they prefer them to a surplus attack aircraft loaded with destructive weapon systems? We will have to disagree on that logic.

They have no easy access to these things, thus they are not reported nightly on the news. Do you think that at least some of those idiots that go on shooting rampages would not prefer a M249 with a 200 rounder attached if they could get one?

This "if they really want it they can get it anyways" so go ahead a make it legal mentality is really crazy IMO.