Privledge vs Right? and other 2nd Amendment questions.

[Pele]

If the founding fathers included a cannon in arms, then that shouldn't limit me to heavy artillery today. After all, the cannon was heavy artillery in the days of the Revolutionary War.

[wolfhunter]

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed". ANY law regulating what Arms a citizen can keep or bear is a violation of our rights. 2A isn't about duck hunting; it isn't about self defense, it's about the ability to overthrow a tyrranic government.

[Pele]

Originally Posted by wolfhunter

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means "Shall Not Be Infringed". ANY law regulating what Arms a citizen can keep or bear is a violation of our rights. 2A isn't about duck hunting; it isn't about self defense, it's about the ability to overthrow a tyrranic government.

So then full auto should be allowable, but it isn't.

[wolfhunter]

Originally Posted by Pele

So then full auto should be allowable, but it isn't.

There were no laws against owning them until 1934. Less than 100 years of gun control, and we teeter on the edge of losing the permission to own the few legally remaining guns.

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by Pele

So then full auto should be allowable, but it isn't.

In many states you can own a select fire or full auto weapon. You just have to go through the Class 3 weapons process. It looks like you live in Virginia. If this is the case you can get a class 3 weapon and here's one dealer that's available (note: This was an internet search and I can't personally vouch for him, there are several though):

http://class3only.com/about.html

[Onlinedad]

The only thing that restricted the people, of way back when, on what they could purchase (cannon, ships, etc) was the price tag. I'm sure that the average guy trying to move his family out west wasn't the best off finanically. So he couldn't buy a complete arsenal. It wasn't because he wasnt allowed to.
I believe the same should still hold true today. If I have enough money to buy a Abrams Tank, or a Super Cobra then I should be able to. The only stipulation would be that I would have to have a place to keep them that would be secure enough to keep them from getting stolen by the BGs. Now that could mean a local ran armory (just like a storage place, where you can park an RV), or if I have the space on my own property then I can keep it there too.

[Pele]

Originally Posted by Skindad88

If I have enough money to buy a Abrams Tank, or a Super Cobra then I should be able to. The only stipulation would be that I would have to have a place to keep them that would be secure enough to keep them from getting stolen by the BGs. Now that could mean a local ran armory (just like a storage place, where you can park an RV), or if I have the space on my own property then I can keep it there too.

I suppose with a welder and good ol' fashioned ingenuity one can create similar weapons on their own.

Google "killdozer"

[Pele]

More thoughts:

What of infringement?
The previous Assault Weapons Ban was deemed constitutional, and although it's past its sunset period, it can come back.
I can't own a rifle or shotgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches without paying a special $200 tax on it.
I can't own a fully automatic weapon without a major background checks beyond my current NCIC required for my CCW.

Are these not infringements?

[DocBoCook]

Originally Posted by Pele

Well, it seems that we're all in agreement that Arms are intended for self defense...

Let me play devils advocate:

Why does one need an AR-15, AK-47, or any such assault rifle for self defense?
Why does one need a 15 round magazine for self defense? If you're not getting the job done in 7 rounds, you're most likely not going to get it done at all.
Why would one need an M1 Garand, Thompson Submachine gun, or any of the other various ex-military or generally higher power/fast fire rate gun that's on the Curios and Relics list?
(I'm applying for my C&R FFL specifically for some more modern WWII era guns.)

These seem excessive for self defense.

Because the Oppressors would not be carrying a bolt action, so why should you limit yourself to it

Because offenders to your inalienable rights would not "do it with just seven". They will have many men and many more bullets

Again, because offenders to your rights aren't going to bring Varmint guns to take away your rights, so why can't you keep things as close to even field as possible

Hope that answers your questions

[DocBoCook]

Originally Posted by Pele

More thoughts:

What of infringement?
The previous Assault Weapons Ban was deemed constitutional, and although it's past its sunset period, it can come back.
I can't own a rifle or shotgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches without paying a special $200 tax on it.
I can't own a fully automatic weapon without a major background checks beyond my current NCIC required for my CCW.

Are these not infringements?

It was unfortunatly by narrow minded USC, but it was an experiment, that's why it expired. It didn't change gun violence, so................

I don't know why you can't own this without a tax, other than the government trying to suck more money out of you or keeping poor people from being able to defend themselves as well as the rich people can that are the ones suppressing your ability to protect yourself from them. It's a vicious cycle.

Because they think that criminals actually use this, those people are morons if they think that someone who would get a background check would be the ones commiting the crime.