This is a more detailed, better example of what I was trying to say. I'd rather take care of things that are impossible to get before I take care of things that are slightly difficult to get. Given, I grew up in California. The list of things that are impossible to get is a lot longer there, and the list of things that are difficult to get is all-encompassing. So my perspective may be a little off.
This is a more detailed, better example of what I was trying to say. I'd rather take care of things that are impossible to get before I take care of things that are slightly difficult to get. Given, I grew up in California. The list of things that are impossible to get is a lot longer there, and the list of things that are difficult to get is all-encompassing. So my perspective may be a little off.
That ridiculous federal law that prohibits the manufacture or sale of "armor piercing bullets" needs to go the way of the dodo, as well.
As does the state law...
One way to interpret 2A is that the intent of the reaffirmation was that ALL citizens possess any weapons organic to a light infantry unit. The original thinking was that a standing federal military was a direct threat to individual freedom.
There is some historical precedence for tying NFA '34 to the repeal of the Volstead Act. This was done during arguably the largest federal usurpation of Constitutional rights in U.S. history, and was actually used to employ T-Agents who would otherwise be unemployed by the Volstead repeal. Look up U.S. v. Miller for some background.
There is some historical precedence for tying NFA '34 to the repeal of the Volstead Act. This was done during arguably the largest federal usurpation of Constitutional rights in U.S. history, and was actually used to employ T-Agents who would otherwise be unemployed by the Volstead repeal. Look up U.S. v. Miller for some background.
I think the only legitimate role for force or government is to protect liberty. Therefore, the first question I ask when it comes to the legitimacy of arms control laws, before I consider any Constitutional issues, is whether the simple possession of the item in question, without any further safeguards, constitutes a violation of someone's liberty. If the answer is no, it doesn't even matter whether the law would pass Constitutional muster or not... it is an illegitimate exercise of power, and an infringement on the rightful liberty of individuals.
I am open to the possibility that there may be a type of weapon in existence, the mere uncontrolled possession of which is such a great risk to others that it constitutes a violation of their liberty... but I would draw that line closer to N/B/C weapons or very powerful conventional explosives, rather than any kind of small arms. It certainly doesn't make any sense to draw the line so that small arms that load automatically and fire a single projectile with one mechanical function are legal, but small arms that load automatically and fire multiple projectiles with one mechanical function are restricted. There is not much difference between the two in lethality, at least with the modern state of firearms. Single well-placed shots are generally more effective than fully automatic fire. The main use for fully automatic fire is suppressive fire, which doesn't have much of a use outside of the battlefield. Burst fire can increase kill potential on a target in close range shooting, but this doesn't make the weapon so much more dangerous as to justify placing it in a different category altogether from semi-automatic weapons, and certainly not in a different category from shotguns, which fire multiple projectiles AT THE SAME TIME with a single mechanical function.
One thing that WOULD constitute a threat to people's liberty would be a government that severely outmatches its' citizens' ability to resist it by force if necessary.
I am open to the possibility that there may be a type of weapon in existence, the mere uncontrolled possession of which is such a great risk to others that it constitutes a violation of their liberty... but I would draw that line closer to N/B/C weapons or very powerful conventional explosives, rather than any kind of small arms. It certainly doesn't make any sense to draw the line so that small arms that load automatically and fire a single projectile with one mechanical function are legal, but small arms that load automatically and fire multiple projectiles with one mechanical function are restricted. There is not much difference between the two in lethality, at least with the modern state of firearms. Single well-placed shots are generally more effective than fully automatic fire. The main use for fully automatic fire is suppressive fire, which doesn't have much of a use outside of the battlefield. Burst fire can increase kill potential on a target in close range shooting, but this doesn't make the weapon so much more dangerous as to justify placing it in a different category altogether from semi-automatic weapons, and certainly not in a different category from shotguns, which fire multiple projectiles AT THE SAME TIME with a single mechanical function.
One thing that WOULD constitute a threat to people's liberty would be a government that severely outmatches its' citizens' ability to resist it by force if necessary.
henschman said:
News Alert:
US government military capabilities far, far outmatch its citizens' ability to resist it by force if necessary.
Details at 11
In other words we're there and have been for quite a while.
Yes, our government is a threat to our liberty. Tell me something I don't know.
At the time of the passage of the second amendment, citizens had the right to carry the same type of rifle as the modern soldiers of the time. Why has this changed?
We kept giving it away inch by inch.
It's about to get worse, since the Supreme Court finally took a mile during the last few years.
Then they should not be worried about me owning a paltry little machinegun.
Exactly. You would think that on a gun board such as this one that there would be 100% who would support repeal of an unconstitutional gun restriction, yet we have 8% of folks who either don't give enough of a crap or don't mind sacrificing some guns in the mistaken hope that they will get to keep theirs. Pretty sad.
Similar threads
