[Kingarthurhk]

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.

[Ruggles]

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.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

[ray9898]

How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

They are "arms".

[Henry's Dad]

I've always hated those NFA bastards.

http://www.nfaonline.org/

[Glockdude1]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

I've always hated those NFA bastards.

http://www.nfaonline.org/

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by ray9898

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.

[ray9898]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?

Yeah. Bring it all on.

[hogfish]

Originally Posted by ray9898

Artillery? Shoulder fired missles? Grenades? Claymores?

All but WMDs.

[Scott3670]

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?

[crazymoose]

Originally Posted by hogfish

All but WMDs.

This.

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by ray9898

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?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by TK-421

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.

[HexHead]

Originally Posted by ray9898

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.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

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.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

[Spiffums]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Spiffums

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.

[Ruggles]

Dupe Post.

[.45 Combat]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by .45 Combat

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.

[DreamWeaver88]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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.