close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

I think the NFA is Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Kingarthurhk, Dec 8, 2012.

  1. Henry's Dad

    Henry's Dad woof, woof

    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?
     
  2. TK-421

    TK-421

    10,397
    946
    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    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.
     

  3. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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.
     
  4. sawgrass

    sawgrass

    3,328
    34
    Feb 21, 2009
    I've wondered about your avatar OP.
    Creepy.
     
  5. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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.
     
  6. TK-421

    TK-421

    10,397
    946
    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    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?
     
  7. Henry's Dad

    Henry's Dad woof, woof

    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.
     
  8. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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 :wavey:

    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?
     
  9. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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. :wavey:
     
  10. nmstew

    nmstew

    1,456
    0
    Jan 6, 2007
    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.
     
  11. badge315

    badge315

    4,384
    492
    Aug 14, 2008
    Middleburg, FL
    That's what Jesus' character looks like right before he snaps your neck in Assassin's Creed. :whistling:
     
  12. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    At least he gently lowers you to the ground after killing you :)
     
  13. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    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 :dunno:
     
  14. racerford

    racerford

    4,890
    441
    Apr 22, 2003
    DFW area
    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.
     
  15. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    Good start :) I think most agree there should be limits to the 2nd A protection, some of course don't think any limits :dunno:

    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.
     
  16. TK-421

    TK-421

    10,397
    946
    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    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. :hearts:
     
  17. Ruggles

    Ruggles

    10,280
    23
    Jun 13, 2005
    Tejas
    It would fun to reload for :)
     
  18. holesinpaper

    holesinpaper

    2,402
    0
    Nov 18, 2009
    I think the GCA of 1968 is unconstitutional.
     
  19. TK-421

    TK-421

    10,397
    946
    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    Is that the one that says we can't have .380 Glocks?
     
  20. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    8,983
    12
    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    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.