"... shall not be infringed.", say what?

[MarkM]

Wahsben make a good point above.

The Second Amendment does not give us or permit us anything.

The Second Amendment restricts the Federal Government from infringing on one of many rights that apply to all free people.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Some of our more rabid comrades have taken offense with Mr. Gura's
statement that perhaps there should be limitations on what types of
weapons constitue "arms" suitable for possession by civilians.

It seems we have an element among us that feels we each have a god given right to own a machine gun because the 2nd Amendment
clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, I personally have no objection to our brothers keeping and bearing and shooting and cleaning and polishing and bragging about their machine guns, but I think that maybe their (and my) right to do so ought to be infringed just a little bit. Like maybe a potential buyer ought to get thoroughly checked out by the state and feds before he can take delivery of an automatic weapon - just to insure he's not a terrorist, a nut job, a bank robber, or anything of that ilk.

NOTE: Yes, yes, yes. I know the bullshit already in place relative to the acquisition of a MG. What prompted this post is the way some people are carrying on about about how any restriction on the sale or possession of a full auto weapon is the equivalent to the sinking of the Maine, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and 911 all rolled into one.

If a prospective purchaser has a clean set of bona fides the state should not have the power to block the sale. I 'll just feel more comfortable knowing that any mope with more money than common sense can't walk into a gun store with a pocket full of cash and walk out twenty minutes later with a machine gun. Am I the only
one?

And just what exactly are arms? What are the limits, if any?
How about hand grenades, shoulder fired rocket launchers, claymore mines, and goodies like those. Do you reayy want your neighbors to be able to stock up with that stuff? All of them? I, for one, do not!
(Actually, I'm not really sure what planet some of my neighbors hail from. It's a "diverse" neighborhood.)

So, what do you guys think? Where do we draw the line?

Please excuse me now. I have to get ready for church. We're
throwing my daughter into a volcano at tonight's service -
to make it stop raining in the midwest.

What? Oh yes we can! Read the first amendment!

MAJOR D

This type of "reasoning" is exactly what the anti-gun factions want you to do.

ANY restriction is an infringement on our God-given rights as free men. My right to keep and bear arms is inviolable and I personally consider the NCIS check, the issuance of concealed carry permits and any other rule or regulation an affront to liberty.

 

[Joe G]

Turn back the clock to 1775. The British Army was armed primarily with the Brown Bess musket, a .75 caliber smoothebore. What were the colonists carrying? Comparable weapons. Would the Revolution succeed if the colonists were armed with inferior arms?

Didn't some of the colonists own cannons? I'm guessing a rich farmer or group of settlers might have had one in the barn. Or how about a ship captain - didn't he own his own hardware?

 

[Nashmack]

Didn't some of the colonists own cannons? I'm guessing a rich farmer or group of settlers might have had one in the barn. Or how about a ship captain - didn't he own his own hardware?

IIRC Washington stole cannons.

 

[sig shooter]

i think in order to be a free people and keep the goverment from becoming a dictatorship we need access to the same firearms and machine guns with no restrictons that they have or else we will suffer the same fate as the jews during hitlers third riche.

im a member and i support every thing they stand for http://www.jpfo.org/ they really "get it" every gun owner should be a member.

 

[Chris]

In some ways, the colonists were better armed than the British as Rifled barrels were becoming popular while the Regulars still had smoothbore issued.

Still, if the Militia clause is to have any meaning at all, it must protect the right of the people to keep and bear those arms that are commonly used by a fighting force. If anything was said in the Miller case, that was quite clear.

Honestly, I would wait for June and see what is decided. Then, the debates can resume. (^_^)

 

[Lugnut]

Clearly in MA and DC we're getting porked. That being said I think there should be boundaries like there is for the 1st Ammendment. I honestly think there should be some limits. One could argue that a nuclear weapon launcher is an "arm" and the people should have the equivalent of what the government has. I honesly doubt many of us would be cool with their neighbors screwing around with nuclear weapons. So there is some line to be drawn. Hand guns, rifles and shot guns of all varieties would make me happy. I would want more scrutiny for other "items". Call me a lefty or whatever... that's fine.

 

[z0mbi]

Stiill no takers on my crack about human sacrifice. Looks like you have to say it's consttutionally protected if you're a strict constructionist. But of course that dosen't mean you necessarily approve of it.

MAJOR D

Not sure what your point was, but human sacrifice obviously infringes on the sacrificee's rights. Maybe I just missed some sarcasm?

 

[Transporter]

Not sure what your point was, but human sacrifice obviously infringes on the sacrificee's rights. Maybe I just missed some sarcasm?

I thought he was pulling the "Freedom of Religion" card myself with that, but that's a whole nuther can o worms and this thread will be long enough without debating contrived 1A arguements.

 

[USMA-82]

im a member and i support every thing they stand for http://www.jpfo.org/ they really "get it" every gun owner should be a member.

+1

Been a charter member for several years now. This organization really understands the consequences of disarming "the People." Definitely check out their website!

 

[seanc]

Here's a question: if the founders thought the Second Amendment was necessary (at least in part) so that armed citizens could overthrow a corrupt government....

Could we?

Some of our members have some great hardware out there, but up against a modern military (scenes from "RED DAWN" aside), what chance do we really have armed with our NES logo AR home-builts and an ammo can full of 5.56?

Sure there is the numerical superiority...

Sure we can count on some of the military refusing to obey orders...

But if we could not physically accomplish what was intended 200 (+) years ago, is the Second Amendment already half in the grave?

I would point you to quite a LOT of examples here. Vietnam, the argument could easily be made that while the VC "Lost" on the battle fields they were able to "win" the war by Propaganda and turning the tide of US support of the war.

The Warsaw Ghetto, this is a VERY important one. Essentially the unarmed and subjugated popluace was able to knock off a few Nazi guards and grab their weapons...Holding vast german forces at bay for quite some time until a massive assault on the Ghetto took place. Again, relatively few people up against a well trained, armed force.

The US Revolution. A relatively small force up against the biggest, baddest, most well drilled, financed equiped force on the planet. The US forces lost far more battles than they won, but, ultimately prevailed.

There are more, Masada, The Scotts under William Wallace, 100s of years of the Irish fighting the British, Afghanistan and the Russians. Many are not as sucessful as others. But the point here is that the superior force is/ needs to be very wary of a small and motived group. What will the losses be? 3 biggies to 1 little guy? 10 biggies to 1 little guy? How much will it cost? what is to gain? how long will it take? How will they look on CNN, is is politburo election time? etc..

For a local touch, look at Shea's rebellion, the Bonus marchers, the Alamo...

 

[codenamepaul]

Here's a question: if the founders thought the Second Amendment was necessary (at least in part) so that armed citizens could overthrow a corrupt government....

Could we?

Some of our members have some great hardware out there, but up against a modern military (scenes from "RED DAWN" aside), what chance do we really have armed with our NES logo AR home-builts and an ammo can full of 5.56?

Sure there is the numerical superiority...

Sure we can count on some of the military refusing to obey orders...

But if we could not physically accomplish what was intended 200 (+) years ago, is the Second Amendment already half in the grave?

Didn't even get past this one without absolutely having to comment. We could EASILY!!!! do (and better) what the founding fathers did. Think...

Advantage 1-
Most of us are vets (nearly none of the early militia were) alot with combat experience. Or at least a significant portion thereof.

Advantage 2
Military rule of thumb is 10-1 ratio of guerilla to professional for any hope of success. Current military strength is about 4 million-and that ain't all infantry either.

Estimate 80 million gunowners in the US-but only about 1% actively participate (revolution estimated 3-5% active under arms) is 800,000 men under arms-all with home field advantage. This would require a standing army of 8 million men under arms (infantry, that is) Getting 3-5% is a force multiplier.
Think of the Russian snipers vs. the German army. Only worse.

Advantage 3
Small unit versatility and ease of movement. This we see in Iraq every day and not too far back with the Palestinians hold off the Israelis (indisputably the world's most combat experienced military) IOW-it is much easier to maneuver a Porsche than an 18 wheeler and faster too.

Just a few points to ponder....

 

[tuna]

On the comparable arms thing: we are at least armed better than the Europeans during WWII who only had "Liberator .45's", designed to get a better gun; also, didn't the colonists during the Battle of Bennington have a large number of men "armed" with farm implements? (Not all of them, but I'm pretty sure that there were quite a few armed with pitchforks as makeshift bayonets).

On the '34 law: Wasn't that passed as (probably) the first feel good legislation? "Let's outlaw machine guns to keep them from the criminals", "but the criminals are stealing the guns from the police and National Guard", "Shhhhhhhhhhhh - we've got to LOOK like we're doing something".


I can't afford to feed a machine gun (unless it was a .22) - so I wouldn't buy one or bother going through the process to own one. However, that is MY choice, and I would like to be able to make that choice, not have it made for me.

Mr Gura's defense on not swinging at what I thought was a softball pitch for MGs may actually make sense. Very few are alive today who can remember when MGs were not regulated, and it probably doesn't strike a chord with anyone except those of us who read "shall not be infringed" as "not to be f*****d with by the government". In theory, I disagree, but in practice, I see the logic in his reasoning to win by baby steps, after all, it's how we started losing our rights to begin with.

 

[Edzo]

Machine guns, silencers, grenades, grenade launchers, cannons, mines, whatever is fair game and should be accessable without precondition or hoops. When you get into crew served weapons, I am not sure where to draw the line.

The very nature of a crew served weapon would limit it's usefullness to an individual. The difficulty or impossibility of operating it on your own might not make it very sensible for an individual to buy, but if that's how someone wants to waste their money they should have the opportunity.

The only danger to letting private citizens buy jets, submarines, etc would be in the potential for resale, but export could be regulated without running afoul of the second ammendment.

 

[Nashmack]

The very nature of a crew served weapon would limit it's usefullness to an individual. The difficulty or impossibility of operating it on your own might not make it very sensible for an individual to buy, but if that's how someone wants to waste their money they should have the opportunity.

The only danger to letting private citizens buy jets, submarines, etc would be in the potential for resale, but export could be regulated without running afoul of the second ammendment.

It's perfectly legal to buy a tank IIRC. Of course, most of the ones for sale will have the barells plugged or breaches destroyed. It kind of begs the question, how much damage can you do with just your traeds?

 

[JonJ]

It's perfectly legal to buy a tank IIRC. Of course, most of the ones for sale will have the barells plugged or breaches destroyed. It kind of begs the question, how much damage can you do with just your traeds?

Ever see this?

 

[Pilgrim]

In this country, based on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, we should be allowed to possess ANYTHING, provided we don't hurt any one with it. Hurt yourself....ok..your right. Hurt others...no.

So unless I hurt someone, I should be allowed to have it and use it anyway that I see fit.

I do believe that's the basis that this country was founded upon.

We have evolved thru liberalism to: you MIGHT hurt someone else or yourself, so you can't have it.

 

[JonJ]

In this country, based on INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, we should be allowed to possess ANYTHING, provided we don't hurt any one with it. Hurt yourself....ok..your right. Hurt others...no.

So unless I hurt someone, I should be allowed to have it and use it anyway that I see fit.

I do believe that's the basis that this country was founded upon.

We have evolved thru liberalism to: you can't be TRUSTED, so you can't have it.

I fixed it for ya.

 

[USMA-82]

seanc, codenamepaul, tuna:

All good points - but I'll add a few thoughts:

- The "David vs. Goliath" history examples were primarily desperate individuals defending their lives from an invading foreign force - not us fighting our own countrymen. The last time that happened (1861 - 1865), the side with the greatest industrial resources won.

- During the time of our fight for independence, our land was populated with folks who had at least one firearm, and knew how to use it. They weren't afraid to use it either. Competance with a firearm meant the difference between food on the table or going hungry. I'm afraid the percentage of gun-owners today that would actually stand and fight for their rights is significantly lower than it was back then.

- This scenario wouldn't be a historical first for a modern, "first-world" country. Look at how the citizens of England and Australian lined up to turn in their guns and refused to fight.

- Certainly the combined strength of NES members would be a formidable force, but - how many of us have night vision googles, gas masks and armored vehicles at our disposal? How quickly could we mobilize, form a plan of attack and estabish a supply system?

- Looking at the strength of numerical superiority: Yes, the Zulus under Cetshwayo overwhelmed British forces at Isandlwanda in 1879 using (for the most part) only spears against the British Martini-Henrys. But in the end, the British were the victors. The Zulus could not sustain the losses or mass as quickly for the rest of the conflict.

The bottom line to all of this - if we are to truly offer a remedy for an oppressive / corrupt government via the Second Amendment, we need to be able to legally possess the tools of modern armies - including machine guns.

 

[Fsorrent]

I agree somewhat too. If you ever look at "futureweapons" or like shows, the modern battle field is changing. Even with a machinegun, it's likely that it won't have much of an affect on a helicopter or jet... against basic infantry i think we'd have a good chance. But when they bring out the birds, chances are minimal. They'd destroy our supply lines, munitions bunkers, safe houses. The only thing we'd be able to do is die as free men and hope our deaths stood for more than our actions. Hope that other countries would defend our cause, instead of our governments. How many would die for a cause? 200 years ago the answer would be obviuos. Now a days, people have more excuses than anything.

 

[codenamepaul]

seanc, codenamepaul, tuna:

All good points - but I'll add a few thoughts:

- The "David vs. Goliath" history examples were primarily desperate individuals defending their lives from an invading foreign force - not us fighting our own countrymen. The last time that happened (1861 - 1865), the side with the greatest industrial resources won.
I would consider an opressive US government as much a foreign force as the blue helmets. I would even suggest that this would be the route the .gov would go vs. using US troops.
- During the time of our fight for independence, our land was populated with folks who had at least one firearm, and knew how to use it. They weren't afraid to use it either. Competance with a firearm meant the difference between food on the table or going hungry. I'm afraid the percentage of gun-owners today that would actually stand and fight for their rights is significantly lower than it was back then. Which is why I went with 1% vs the 3-5% that actually took part, you could concievably go to a tenth of a percent and come out on top.

- This scenario wouldn't be a historical first for a modern, "first-world" country. Look at how the citizens of England and Australian lined up to turn in their guns and refused to fight. I might suggest they had a couple hundred more years of submission than we-meaning we are still ungelded-and less "civilized"
- Certainly the combined strength of NES members would be a formidable force, but - how many of us have night vision googles, gas masks and armored vehicles at our disposal? How quickly could we mobilize, form a plan of attack and estabish a supply system? Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad
- Looking at the strength of numerical superiority: Yes, the Zulus under Cetshwayo overwhelmed British forces at Isandlwanda in 1879 using (for the most part) only spears against the British Martini-Henrys. But in the end, the British were the victors. The Zulus could not sustain the losses or mass as quickly for the rest of the conflict.

The bottom line to all of this - if we are to truly offer a remedy for an oppressive / corrupt government via the Second Amendment, we need to be able to legally possess the tools of modern armies - including machine guns.

I don't necessarily agree with needing to legally posess. They would become available quickly in an insurrection. As would most other pieces of equipment.

FSorrent-Bringing out the birds only has a small effect. As we found in VN and now in Iraq, and as the Russians did in Afghanistan, air superiority is only useful if the other guy is bombing your shit. If he's not, you're just burning fuel. Outside of that, you still need a man on the ground to make the other guy come out of his hole and sign the peace treaty.

 

[Scrivener]

The "David vs. Goliath" history examples were primarily desperate individuals defending their lives from an invading foreign force - not us fighting our own countrymen. The last time that happened (1861 - 1865), the side with the greatest industrial resources won.

Absolutely correct.

However, it took a couple of years to bring that power to bear AND put it under competent leadership. In that time, the CSA came within a hair's breadth of achieving recognition by Britain and France, which would likely have turned the tide for the South.

Looking at the strength of numerical superiority: Yes, the Zulus under Cetshwayo overwhelmed British forces at Isandlwanda in 1879 using (for the most part) only spears against the British Martini-Henrys. But in the end, the British were the victors. The Zulus could not sustain the losses or mass as quickly for the rest of the conflict. [/QUOTE]

The Zulu force at Islandwhana was not directly led by Cetawayo; the force which attacked Rorke's Drift was too late for the Islandwhana battle and went renegade; leaving Zulu land in search of targets of opportunity.

Note that this latter force was equipped with the SAME weapons as the British, having relieved the British corpses of their guns and ammo.

I agree that the number of qualified riflemen available at present - and likely to actually use those rifles and skills - is, as a percentage, far less than in 1776 or 1861.

 

[drgrant]

Hate to nit-pick, but you still do not own any "Assault Weapons". An AW is defined as having select fire ability. You own Semi-Auto Firearms. This definition of Semi's as AW's is a myth that really needs to be corrected.

"Assault Weapon" as a term is FAR worse than that- it's a term
that was invented by the media and politicians and has no technical basis whatsoever for its existence.

"Assault Rifle" on the other hand, actually does have a real meaning, to some degree, that has nothing to do with antis or politicians.


-Mike

 

[codenamepaul]

Do you think that these numbers would grow as the "insurrection" gained popularity?

Just a point...

 

[Scrivener]

Bringing out the birds only has a small effect. As we found in VN and now in Iraq, and as the Russians did in Afghanistan, air superiority is only useful if the other guy is bombing your shit. If he's not, you're just burning fuel. Outside of that, you still need a man on the ground to make the other guy come out of his hole and sign the peace treaty.

Really? What do you think kept the NVA out of Khe Sahn; small arms fire and epithets? Try liberal applications of snake & nape, C-130's bringing in supplies and the protective mantle of gunships hosing Charlie down with Bofors guns, Vulcans and 105's.

Note that the gunships also provided the same nighttime protection for many other fire bases, as well as destroying truck traffic along the HCM Trail.

It was air superiority that destroyed the Germans in the Falaise Pocket and supplied and protected our troops in the Battle of the Bulge - WHEN the weather broke.

The Hind gunship was very effective in Afghanistan - UNTIL we provided the mujahaddin with Stingers.

 

[codenamepaul]

Not arguing that it doesn't have some effect. Just not alot. Khe Sahn was defended by men, the aircraft were a help, not the end-all.

Your other two points illustrate the limits to this. Thank you.

Still need a man on the groud. Bomb and strafe all you like. Cu chi also proved this. How effective a hole can be!

 

[tuna]

One thing bothers me about the whole idea of throwing off a repressive government...

We already have the means to do so, if we (EVERYONE) got off their sorry butts and went to the voting booth.
***Sidenote - I once was being investigated for my Security Clearance, and decided to mess with the investigator a little bit:
Investigator - Have you ever advocated violently overthrowing the US Government
Me: Not "Violently", no
Inv: Uhhhh, can you explain that
Me: I voted against Clinton and Kennedy being re-elected, so doesn't that count as overthrow the government?


Sure, that's just a cheap chuckle, but it isn't very far from the truth, is it? How many people do you know that whine constantly about everything the government does, but sit idle at election time. Never mind getting people to join GOAL, or the NRA or donate to whomever - just fricken go VOTE. Read the questions, do 10 minutes of research, and VOTE! It isn't like anyone's threatening you if you go.

So, lets say that our government truly becomes tyrannical. Worse than MA is, I'm talking Nazi Germany tyrannical. My guess is that if we overthrew the tyrants and began the election process, the asshats of this country MAY turn away from American Idol long enough to vote Kennedy back in as Senator.

Maybe I'm just in a slump, but the more I think about it, the more I feel truly sad at the apathy that most Americans have for their rights, if they even know what they are...

 

[codenamepaul]

+1 Tuna !!!!

 

[USMA-82]

How many people do you know that whine constantly about everything the government does, but sit idle at election time. Never mind getting people to join GOAL, or the NRA or donate to whomever - just fricken go VOTE. Read the questions, do 10 minutes of research, and VOTE! It isn't like anyone's threatening you if you go.

Absolutely! So people who won't vote, join GOAL/NRA, or turn away from American Idol or the March Madness playoffs for 10 minutes are going to suddenly grow a pair and overthrow a corrupt government? I don't think so.

"Note that this latter force was equipped with the SAME weapons as the British, having relieved the British corpses of their guns and ammo."

If you read Malcolm Cobb's excellent "The Martini-Henry Notebook," one thing he points out is the Zulu's unfamiliarity with the weapon, and inability to use it effectively. For example, it was commonly understood by the Zulu's that if you raised the rear sight, it would automatically make the rifle shoot higher.

 

[drgrant]

IMO the line could reasonably be drawn at man portable guns, with perhaps some restrictions on explosive devices- mainly due to the fact that a guy keeping crates of grenades in his apartment is probably not a good idea. On the other hand, a guy who has a farm and can build a suitable magazine in his backyard... why not?

It is too bad that we could not ressurect the founders- to see what they thought. I would venture a guess that most of them would think that any firearm that can be carried by one man would probably be protected. They likely would approve of anything that one man could use to wage insurrection against an out of control government, or for self defense.

As far as the whole background check thing goes... I think the existing system is nearly worthless, except in terms of aggravating lawful gun owners. It only manages to catch criminals which are completely brain dead. The
NICS system can be wallhacked rather easily if one was really intent on circumventing or passing a background check. (Think- a straw purchase or false identity will defeat the system nearly every time, unless the criminals are complete morons. ) The majority of criminals (eg, people that actually commit violent crime with guns) don't buy their guns at retail or at a gun show anyways, where the majority of background checks get conducted. They buy them from the same guy they get their crack from or whatever.

The thing is though, I think even with a SCOTUS win, that NICS would be ruled as "reasonable regulation". Within that reality, I would think that at least a modicum of reform is in order- starting with a system which is easier for
one to refute a delay/denial. One should be able to clear up a false identification in a matter of minutes or hours, not days.

I've always thought, though, that what Gabe has mentioned is the best approach... if someone (that we know about) is dangerous enough that they shouldn't be allowed access to a firearm, shouldn't they be locked up somewhere? The problem with the prohibited person edict is it goes against the principle that by someone doing their time that they have served their debt to society. Hell, even reforming the prohibited person thing so that it "auto sunsets" would be an improvement.

Another option is that prohibited person should be applied on maybe a case by case basis, in the form of a lifetime (but possibly revocable) probation; and that sort of thing, should be subject to due process, and not be automatic. The lady who gets PP slapped on her for ripping her husband's pants pocket on an MDV conviction, or the guy who got bagged with only a "possession with intent to distribute" felony rap 20 years ago (when he was going through the greasy hippy phase of his life) should not be barred from owning guns- it just doesn't make any sense. The society we live in now has more respect for drunk drivers that kill people than it does for someone who wishes to own a firearm.

I guess what I'm driving at, is even if a lot of the current regulations are probably unconstitutional, we could
probably work at getting them to be more in line with a "reasonable regulation" rather than the absurdities that
most federal (and many state) gun laws currently are.

-Mike