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: 8,397
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 12-08-2012, 19:32   #3
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,167


How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

They are "arms".
ray9898 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:38   #4
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 750
I've always hated those NFA bastards.

http://www.nfaonline.org/

Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:39   #5
LawScholar
Senior Member
 
LawScholar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,152
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.
__________________
Beretta PX4 .40 - Colt 1968 Detective Special .38 Spc.- Ruger LCP .380 - Daniel Defense M4V1 Carbine 5.56 - Ruger 10/22 .22LR - Remington Express Tactical 870 12GA
LawScholar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:40   #6
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   #7
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,167


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, 19:49   #8
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

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

Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 19:51   #9
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
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, 19:52   #10
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, 19:55   #11
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
Old 12-08-2012, 19:55   #12
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, 19:56   #13
hogfish
Señor Member
 
hogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 4,054
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   #14
Scott3670
Senior Member
 
Scott3670's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 2,209
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 12-08-2012, 20:02   #15
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
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 12-08-2012, 20:04   #16
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott3670 View Post
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?
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.
__________________
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, 20:06   #17
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,081


Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver88 View Post
Everyone should own a Nuclear ICBM.
Everyone, except Albert Shanker. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:06   #18
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,541
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, 20:11   #19
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
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.
RICO laws were very effective at combating organized crime. The mafia simply does not exist as it once did in major cities.
Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:13   #20
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
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 12-08-2012, 20:17   #21
Henry's Dad
woof, woof
 
Henry's Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Upriver of 3 Mile Island
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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?
Henry's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:18   #22
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles View Post
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.
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.
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:29   #23
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry's Dad View Post
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?
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.
Ruggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:30   #24
sawgrass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,312
I've wondered about your avatar OP.
Creepy.
sawgrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 20:37   #25
Ruggles
Senior Member
 
Ruggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 8,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
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.
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.
Ruggles 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 19:42.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,410
439 Members
971 Guests

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