[TK-421]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

They use airliners because they're almost free. What would you rather do? Spend a couple mil on some planes and armament, and then figure out a way to get them here, get them in the air, and not get shot down by the national guard? Or would you rather hijack a plane, all for the price of a $2 box cutter, and a plane ticket?

The guys on the shooting rampages? Sure, they'd love an M249. But they wouldn't want to pay the $20k+ plus that it costs. Besides, they can already get fully automatic weapons if they go through the proper legal channels. But they'd still be expensive as hell. I'm sure the guy in Colorado would've loved one. Bet he couldn't afford it though.

And if the "they can already get it so make it legal" mentality is crazy, then why don't we make guns illegal and only let the criminals have them?

[Henry's Dad]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

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.

My point is that what is realistically protected under the 2A is directly related to what was reasonble to own at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Minutemen were expected to own rifles, maybe a pistol. No one expected them to own a cannon or warship.

But you raise an interesting new analysis (at least one I hadn't considered): defining the protections of the 2A based on the balance of (fire)power between the citizens and their government. Not sure if the courts have ever addressed it in this light. Would make for a fun argument, though.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by TK-421

They use airliners because they're almost free. What would you rather do? Spend a couple mil on some planes and armament, and then figure out a way to get them here, get them in the air, and not get shot down by the national guard? Or would you rather hijack a plane, all for the price of a $2 box cutter, and a plane ticket?

The guys on the shooting rampages? Sure, they'd love an M249. But they wouldn't want to pay the $20k+ plus that it costs. Besides, they can already get fully automatic weapons if they go through the proper legal channels. But they'd still be expensive as hell. I'm sure the guy in Colorado would've loved one. Bet he couldn't afford it though.

And if the "they can already get it so make it legal" mentality is crazy, then why don't we make guns illegal and only let the criminals have them?

Enough for me, you have you right to disagree with the NFA and the thought that everything thing is covered under the 2nd A for you to legally own. I have mine to disagree. I have had this debate before on here and it never ends

Trying to align my views with those wishing to ban all firearms is silly, that is not even remotely what I said. As stated I feel the current federal laws are a respectful balance as they stand with some room for adjustment. You folks with crazy state laws need to address that at state level.

What are your views on the 1st A? Any restrictions their in your view?

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by Henry's Dad

My point is that what is realistically protected under the 2A is directly related to what was reasonble to own at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Minutemen were expected to own rifles, maybe a pistol. No one expected them to own a cannon or warship.

But you raise an interesting new analysis (at least one I hadn't considered): defining the protections of the 2A based on the balance of (fire)power between the citizens and their government. Not sure if the courts have ever addressed it in this light. Would make for a fun argument, though.

It would, but IMO the results of modern wars since Vietnam (if not earlier) are a indicator that warfare between two clearly unbalanced militaries are hard to predict. In the case of a U.S. modern armed revolution it gets even more unclear as I find it impossible to believe that our armed forces would united against their own citizens. It would be a fun debate like you said.

[nmstew]

The NFA lines are absolutely nonsensical.

Silencers- these are growing in popularity and visibility. In many states you can hunt with them. I have seen more than I ever expected to on the range lately.

Autos and auto sears- if you can be trusted with one bullet, you can be trusted with thousands per minute.

SBR- This is an absolute joke and is hilarious in terms of physics. Short barrels make the weapon less effective. A 7" AR turns 5.56 into a pea shooter. Less barrel, less room to accelerate, lower muzzle velocity.

Do away with the NFA and harshen the punishments for people that misuse these things. It is archaic, let's put it behind us.

[badge315]

Originally Posted by sawgrass

I've wondered about your avatar OP.
Creepy.

That's what Jesus' character looks like right before he snaps your neck in Assassin's Creed.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by badge315

That's what Jesus' character looks like right before he snaps your neck in Assassin's Creed.

At least he gently lowers you to the ground after killing you

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by nmstew

The NFA lines are absolutely nonsensical.

Silencers- these are growing in popularity and visibility. In many states you can hunt with them. I have seen more than I ever expected to on the range lately.

Autos and auto sears- if you can be trusted with one bullet, you can be trusted with thousands per minute.

SBR- This is an absolute joke and is hilarious in terms of physics. Short barrels make the weapon less effective. A 7" AR turns 5.56 into a pea shooter. Less barrel, less room to accelerate, lower muzzle velocity.

Do away with the NFA and harshen the punishments for people that misuse these things. It is archaic, let's put it behind us.

Like I said I agree the NFA could use some refinement. I agree with silencers and the SBRs. Silencers seem to be a no brainier to me

[racerford]

NFA is an infringement. I am not sure it has been properly tested in the courts.

I would lift restrictions on full auto, silencers, SBRs, and most if not all AOWs.

Explosive devices would be a bit more tricky. I think the legal should be one of storage, so call it fire or public safety laws not an arms law. Take for an example grenades; say that have a deadly blast radius of 10 meters. So either that must be stored no closer to someone else's property than 10 meters, and must be transported in a blast resistant container that would contain them. If you fail to meet then storage requirements, off to jail for a while. There should be requirement about stability. I would feel better about my neighbor having C4 than Nitroglycerin. So again it is more a fire or public safety issue. If you have 100,000 acres and want a 5 inch howitzer, great as long as you store the shells properly and don't shell with the blast radius of you neighbor's property.

Maybe there are limits about what you can store. So now you can't store more than so many gallons of gasoline in a garage, in portable containers. Some cities limit you to how many pounds of black powder you can store. So 5 ponds of C4 is OK 50 pounds not OK. It's all about what can you safely store. It is about danger to the public absent criminal intent.

What about atomic bombs. Well if you had enough land to properly store one so it was no closer than the blast radius and the fallout are remain on your property, you would be good to go, as long as you could safely transport, store and maintain the device. So that would be essentially nowhere in the US, you couldn't have one.

It would be necessarily complex, but it could be done. It used to be legal and relatively to get TNT and things weren't getting blown up everywhere. A farmer would get a few sticks to blow stumps

There should be age limits.

Maybe restrictions should be on the sellers, rather than just buyers.

I am not saying this a fully or partially baked idea. Or even a good one. Just a thought starter.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by racerford

NFA is an infringement. I am not sure it has been properly tested in the courts.

I would lift restrictions on full auto, silencers, SBRs, and most if not all AOWs.

Explosive devices would be a bit more tricky. I think the legal should be one of storage, so call it fire or public safety laws not an arms law. Take for an example grenades; say that have a deadly blast radius of 10 meters. So either that must be stored no closer to someone else's property than 10 meters, and must be transported in a blast resistant container that would contain them. If you fail to meet then storage requirements, off to jail for a while. There should be requirement about stability. I would feel better about my neighbor having C4 than Nitroglycerin. So again it is more a fire or public safety issue. If you have 100,000 acres and want a 5 inch howitzer, great as long as you store the shells properly and don't shell with the blast radius of you neighbor's property.

Maybe there are limits about what you can store. So now you can't store more than so many gallons of gasoline in a garage, in portable containers. Some cities limit you to how many pounds of black powder you can store. So 5 ponds of C4 is OK 50 pounds not OK. It's all about what can you safely store. It is about danger to the public absent criminal intent.

What about atomic bombs. Well if you had enough land to properly store one so it was no closer than the blast radius and the fallout are remain on your property, you would be good to go, as long as you could safely transport, store and maintain the device. So that would be essentially nowhere in the US, you couldn't have one.

It would be necessarily complex, but it could be done. It used to be legal and relatively to get TNT and things weren't getting blown up everywhere. A farmer would get a few sticks to blow stumps

There should be age limits.

Maybe restrictions should be on the sellers, rather than just buyers.

I am not saying this a fully or partially baked idea. Or even a good one. Just a thought starter.

Good start I think most agree there should be limits to the 2nd A protection, some of course don't think any limits

I think the sticking point is always where those limits are. But I think we all know that the NFA is not going away anytime soon.

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by racerford

NFA is an infringement. I am not sure it has been properly tested in the courts.

I would lift restrictions on full auto, silencers, SBRs, and most if not all AOWs.

Explosive devices would be a bit more tricky. I think the legal should be one of storage, so call it fire or public safety laws not an arms law. Take for an example grenades; say that have a deadly blast radius of 10 meters. So either that must be stored no closer to someone else's property than 10 meters, and must be transported in a blast resistant container that would contain them. If you fail to meet then storage requirements, off to jail for a while. There should be requirement about stability. I would feel better about my neighbor having C4 than Nitroglycerin. So again it is more a fire or public safety issue. If you have 100,000 acres and want a 5 inch howitzer, great as long as you store the shells properly and don't shell with the blast radius of you neighbor's property.

Maybe there are limits about what you can store. So now you can't store more than so many gallons of gasoline in a garage, in portable containers. Some cities limit you to how many pounds of black powder you can store. So 5 ponds of C4 is OK 50 pounds not OK. It's all about what can you safely store. It is about danger to the public absent criminal intent.

What about atomic bombs. Well if you had enough land to properly store one so it was no closer than the blast radius and the fallout are remain on your property, you would be good to go, as long as you could safely transport, store and maintain the device. So that would be essentially nowhere in the US, you couldn't have one.

It would be necessarily complex, but it could be done. It used to be legal and relatively to get TNT and things weren't getting blown up everywhere. A farmer would get a few sticks to blow stumps

There should be age limits.

Maybe restrictions should be on the sellers, rather than just buyers.

I am not saying this a fully or partially baked idea. Or even a good one. Just a thought starter.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about when I talked about letting people have explosives, you just put it into more detail than I did. It's one of those "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care. If it does affect me, there will be hell to pay." I think if some Joe Schmo wants a howitzer, let him, as long as he has enough land that he can use it safely, and it only affects him if something goes bad.

Hell, I'd love to have a howitzer.

[Ruggles]

Originally Posted by TK-421

That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about when I talked about letting people have explosives, you just put it into more detail than I did. It's one of those "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care. If it does affect me, there will be hell to pay." I think if some Joe Schmo wants a howitzer, let him, as long as he has enough land that he can use it safely, and it only affects him if something goes bad.

Hell, I'd love to have a howitzer.

It would fun to reload for

[holesinpaper]

I think the GCA of 1968 is unconstitutional.

[TK-421]

Originally Posted by holesinpaper

I think the GCA of 1968 is unconstitutional.

Is that the one that says we can't have .380 Glocks?

[NEOH212]

I don't have a problem with the NFA outside of the Cheif LEO signature crap.

What I do feel is more unconstitutional is the Hughes amendment. That needs to go away.

[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.

[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.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Enough for me, you have you right to disagree with the NFA and the thought that everything thing is covered under the 2nd A for you to legally own. I have mine to disagree. I have had this debate before on here and it never ends

Trying to align my views with those wishing to ban all firearms is silly, that is not even remotely what I said. As stated I feel the current federal laws are a respectful balance as they stand with some room for adjustment. You folks with crazy state laws need to address that at state level.

What are your views on the 1st A? Any restrictions their in your view?

The original intent was for the balance to be in favor of the citizens. They believed in the Citizen Soldier rather than the professional soldier, so to a degree the Constitution is out of date. That does not mean it can be superseded by non-Constitutional means.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by badge315

That's what Jesus' character looks like right before he snaps your neck in Assassin's Creed.

Lay off the cheap shots. They add nothing to the conversation.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Ruggles

Good start I think most agree there should be limits to the 2nd A protection, some of course don't think any limits

I think the sticking point is always where those limits are. But I think we all know that the NFA is not going away anytime soon.

I agree. No one, including the police, should have remote controlled machine guns mounted under the hood of their cars. However, any changes to the Constitution need to be done in a Constitutional manner. They should not be done by fiat otherwise the Constitution becomes meaningless. If the Constitution is meaningless then our Government becomes meaninglessness. We're back to the Dark Ages where the strongest make the rules to suit themselves and the rest of us pay the price.

[kenpoprofessor]

Again, I'll state the obvious, most of the people posting here are socialists and statists at heart. They're happy with restrictions the gov. has set for them and are in no hurry to get them changed for the better.

For them, it's easier to live a life of oppression than the relentless effort to maintain liberty and freedom.



Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[exmdshooter]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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.

Not exactly. It was actually passed as a full employment act for Treasury agents. Prohibition had recently been repealed, and the gov had hired scores of agents to enforce that unpopular act. What do to? Can't lay off government employees - an empire, once built, must preserve itself. So the government invented the threat caused by machine guns, short barrelled rifles and shotguns, and the rest and passed the NFA. Voila! Now they needed Treasury agents to go after NFA violators.

BTW - we barely missed a very good chance of getting the NFA ruled unconstitutional in the 1938 case of US v Miller. He was accused of having a sawed off shotgun, and the gov made the case that such a weapon had no legitimate military use... which, of course it does. Trouble is Miller's attorneys didn't even show up at the Supreme Court to defend their case so the gov won by default.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by exmdshooter

Not exactly. It was actually passed as a full employment act for Treasury agents. Prohibition had recently been repealed, and the gov had hired scores of agents to enforce that unpopular act. What do to? Can't lay off government employees - an empire, once built, must preserve itself. So the government invented the threat caused by machine guns, short barrelled rifles and shotguns, and the rest and passed the NFA. Voila! Now they needed Treasury agents to go after NFA violators.

Enforcement was under the Treasury Department because no one at the time thought the federal government had the right to ban firearms so the government placed a tax on them so high that very few could afford it. Of course, organized crime could but they weren't going to use registered firearms anyway.

[airmotive]

Originally Posted by ray9898

How about bombs? Cannons? RPG's?

They are "arms".

When you consider the 2A was not put in place so that your ability to punch holes in paper was assured, but was put in place to ensure the government maintained a healthy fear of its citizens...


However, that horse has long since left the barn. In 50 years, we'll be subjects, not citizens.

[lunarspeak]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

Again, I'll state the obvious, most of the people posting here are socialists and statists at heart. They're happy with restrictions the gov. has set for them and are in no hurry to get them changed for the better.

For them, it's easier to live a life of oppression than the relentless effort to maintain liberty and freedom.



Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

i love restictions when it keeps the idiot kid that cant get my order right at starbucks from owning a anti-tank weapon..