GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2012, 19:26   #1
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
I think the NFA is Unconstitutional

Quote:
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 NFA is an infringement.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:32   #2
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
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. 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.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-08-2012 at 19:35..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 05:07   #3
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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. 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.
I believe the only logical interpretation of the 2nd amendment, given its stated purpose, is to protect individual weapons of the type used by or useful to soldiers.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:32   #4
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,176


How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

They are "arms".
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:38   #5
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 756
I've always hated those NFA bastards.

http://www.nfaonline.org/

Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 07:13   #6
Glockdude1
CLM Number 185
Federal Member
 
Glockdude1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Beaumont,Texas
Posts: 26,645


Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry's Dad View Post
I've always hated those NFA bastards.

http://www.nfaonline.org/

__________________
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
Glockdude1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:40   #7
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

They are "arms".
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.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:48   #8
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,176


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
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?
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:52   #9
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?
Yeah. Bring it all on.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:56   #10
hogfish
Señor Member
 
hogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?
All but WMDs.
__________________
Opinions are like noses...everybody's got one.

"Almost no matter the question, capitalism and freedom are the answers, while government and religion are not." Syclone538
hogfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:01   #11
Scott3670
Senior Member
 
Scott3670's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,214
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?
__________________
-Scott


Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.
Scott3670 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 01:38   #12
crazymoose
Nonentity
 
crazymoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogfish View Post
All but WMDs.
This.
__________________
Do not mistake precedent for justification.

Doubt is an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. Voltaire
crazymoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:06   #13
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?
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?
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:13   #14
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
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?
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.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-08-2012 at 20:13..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 06:20   #15
HexHead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?
Given that the intention of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the means to resist a tyrannical government, then yes. The citizens should be as well armed as their potential oppressors, the military.
HexHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:51   #16
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
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.
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.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:55   #17
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:02   #18
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
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.
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

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.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-08-2012 at 20:03..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 05:22   #19
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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.
That's irrelevant. If the people of the United States want to have a Constitutional right to ban firearms they need to change the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not only in the Constitution but it is in the Bill of Right so I doubt that will ever happen.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 08:12   #20
Spiffums
I.C.P.
 
Spiffums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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.
So your for bans I see.........how about not letting those people vote either? You agree with the aint's that it's not a right because you want to grant it like a privilege to some.
__________________
Internet Celebrity Personality
Spiffums is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 10:06   #21
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiffums View Post
So your for bans I see.........how about not letting those people vote either? You agree with the aint's that it's not a right because you want to grant it like a privilege to some.
Where does voting come into this debate? What are you referring to in this debate? Who are "those people" you reference?

Who is talking about it being a privilege for "some"? You have the same rights as anyone else regarding this unless you did something to lose them. And where did I advocate bans? I am simply saying and will continue to say that the 2nd A is no more all inclusive than the 1st A.

It all boils down to how you define "Arms" in the 2nd A, some think it means anything, others like me think it is limited in it's meaning. As the men who wrote it are all dead it has been and will continue to be a ongoing debate I guess.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-09-2012 at 10:14..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 10:13   #22
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Dupe Post.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-09-2012 at 10:14..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:22   #23
.45 Combat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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.
Some people own and fly vintage aircraft, such P-51's, P-38's etc., not to mention B-25 bombers and the like. Any strafing going on in the news.

However, there are household chemicals, that can be used in making explosives. If your intentions are to kill, you'll find a way.

We need to protect our selfs against oppression. I know, good luck with that one.
.45 Combat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:30   #24
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by .45 Combat View Post
Some people own and fly vintage aircraft, such P-51's, P-38's etc., not to mention B-25 bombers and the like. Any strafing going on in the news.

However, there are household chemicals, that can be used in making explosives. If your intentions are to kill, you'll find a way.

We need to protect our selfs against oppression. I know, good luck with that one.
Those classic aircraft do not have active weapons. I don't see how that is relevant to this matter. As for household chemicals, that build your own point has already been made and debated.

Last edited by Ruggles; 12-14-2012 at 11:31..
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:55   #25
DreamWeaver88
...............
 
DreamWeaver88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 6,409


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
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.
Everyone should own a Nuclear ICBM.
DreamWeaver88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:26.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,228
396 Members
832 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42