Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 5
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Daugherty16 View Post
    Just my opinion, as is all of the above. I certainly understand and respect the purist perspective, that says "shall not be infringed" means just that.
    I stand corrected on the legal history - boy i was really off. My humble apologies and thanks for the clarifications.

    However, my post was, as i said, merely my opinion. I also said that i fully understand the opposing viewpoints. I am a long-standing member of NRA and fully support their position - never give an inch. The logic behind an absolute "no infringement" policy is inescapable. However, understand that no infringement means no infringement, at all. So felons, violent offenders, adjudged mental defectives, domestic terrorists, would all be covered under an absolute "no infringement" policy. Basically, anyone, man, woman, or child could walk in and buy a gun. As a responsible citizen, I maintain that this would be a highly irresponsible path. Some limitation to protect the common good is reasonable, and a concept well-founded in constitutional law.

    And since the 2A doesn't define arms, then an absolute "no infringement" policy means we could all have automatic weapons, RPGs, tanks, F-16's, B-2s, smart bombs, missiles, and yes - even a nuke. If we could afford it. Right? Those are all "arms". Cabelas could become like an international military arms depot. If you take a strict constructionist viewpoint, the Federal Gov't should not have a standing army, and instead all those weapons, including WMDs, should instead be in the hands of the citizen soldiers - or militia - who i think was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and about 50 (varies slightly from state to state). We could mobilize as necessary. How far are you willing to take your strict interpretation?

    Sorry, but in the current construct of geopolitics, my viewpoint says nation-states DO need to maintain standing armies, and absolutely should keep WMDs and sophisticated military weapons off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Does it worry me that "the people" no longer have equal footing on which to stand and fight a corrupt government? Yes, it scares the hell out of me.

    I don't have the answers, and don't profess to be an expert at anything. I am a certified gun-nut, according to my wife and most of my friends (except the ones who own more guns than i do...) but i still maintain that reasonable restrictions on our unalienable right of self defense help maintain order in our society and the anarchy that would result otherwise is not a better substitute. IMHO.

    Okay, flame me again.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants ... for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

  2.   
  3. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyPirate View Post
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    So if you really want to argue, the State Militia's are the only one's granted the right to keep and bear arms. We're just fortunate enough that we're given some of their rights. I don't believe this, but it is a valid argument.

    .
    Just FYI, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment is in fact an individual right, and was not intended to be limited to a "Militia".

    District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    bill

  4. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Daugherty16 View Post
    I stand corrected on the legal history - boy i was really off. My humble apologies and thanks for the clarifications.

    However, my post was, as i said, merely my opinion. I also said that i fully understand the opposing viewpoints. I am a long-standing member of NRA and fully support their position - never give an inch. The logic behind an absolute "no infringement" policy is inescapable. However, understand that no infringement means no infringement, at all. So felons, violent offenders, adjudged mental defectives, domestic terrorists, would all be covered under an absolute "no infringement" policy. Basically, anyone, man, woman, or child could walk in and buy a gun. As a responsible citizen, I maintain that this would be a highly irresponsible path. Some limitation to protect the common good is reasonable, and a concept well-founded in constitutional law.

    And since the 2A doesn't define arms, then an absolute "no infringement" policy means we could all have automatic weapons, RPGs, tanks, F-16's, B-2s, smart bombs, missiles, and yes - even a nuke. If we could afford it. Right? Those are all "arms". Cabelas could become like an international military arms depot. If you take a strict constructionist viewpoint, the Federal Gov't should not have a standing army, and instead all those weapons, including WMDs, should instead be in the hands of the citizen soldiers - or militia - who i think was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and about 50 (varies slightly from state to state). We could mobilize as necessary. How far are you willing to take your strict interpretation?

    Sorry, but in the current construct of geopolitics, my viewpoint says nation-states DO need to maintain standing armies, and absolutely should keep WMDs and sophisticated military weapons off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Does it worry me that "the people" no longer have equal footing on which to stand and fight a corrupt government? Yes, it scares the hell out of me.

    I don't have the answers, and don't profess to be an expert at anything. I am a certified gun-nut, according to my wife and most of my friends (except the ones who own more guns than i do...) but i still maintain that reasonable restrictions on our unalienable right of self defense help maintain order in our society and the anarchy that would result otherwise is not a better substitute. IMHO.

    Okay, flame me again.
    No flames intended...

    here's a couple things a lot of people miss or did not know...

    "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

    óNRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
    NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

    The NRA Has Lost Its Way:
    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

    The NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
    In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871.":
    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

    Now on to other fundamental flaws with your current line of thinking, again no flame intended...

    IF an individual is deemed unfit to defend his life or that of his family, etc., by any means necessary; then said individual should not be walking the street...

    Said individual should be under the care & responsibility of the State or other municipality that deems said individual unfit...

    SO... if you have commited a crime or mentally incapacitated and the State, Fed or other municipality says you can walk the streets they MUST let you defend your self & your family by any means necessary using equal or greater force than may be brought against you, without exception..
    Otherwise they have to take responsibility for your well-being 24x7...
    Which they cannot do under the Constitution either...

    Hence... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is without condition...

    And through our own neglect we have allowed the perversion of the constitution & second amendment...

    Time to take back the Republic...

    Repeal 18 USC 922(o)

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
    By Stewart Rhodes (Retired Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney & Noted Scholar on the Constitution & Second Amendment and founder of OathKeepers):
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DONíT COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    IF an individual is deemed unfit to defend his life or that of his family, etc., by any means necessary; then said individual should not be walking the street...
    YUP! You nailed it again.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    I think you need to rethink your position.

    Unlike in those area's we have people that are going to report to the authorities, news, twitter the moment a group of armed men in dresses parade down the street with AK47's towards a hotel.
    You're going to twitter to the cops? The cops are not prepared to handle a group of armed men. Remember what happened a few years ago in North Hollywood? And that was only two armed guys. Most of our cops are no better prepared to handle that now then they were then. So there will be a huge amount of damage done and deaths caused by a group of men with AK47's.

    And finally, really, $2,000 is a perfectly ordinary amount of money to spend on a rifle. I spent nearly that amount on a Sharps Rifle, which fires ONE bullet before you need to reload. I spent $1,400 on a 1911 that holds all of 7 rounds in a clip. If the only thing stopping you from owning an automatic weapon is the cost I suggest getting a better job, or you can always move to Afghanistan where they apparently give them away.
    It's nice you have money to burn but a fully auto AK47 should cost less than $500. Why should anyone have to pay more?
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  7. #46
    Quote:
    And finally, really, $2,000 is a perfectly ordinary amount of money to spend on a rifle. I spent nearly that amount on a Sharps Rifle, which fires ONE bullet before you need to reload. I spent $1,400 on a 1911 that holds all of 7 rounds in a clip. If the only thing stopping you from owning an automatic weapon is the cost I suggest getting a better job, or you can always move to Afghanistan where they apparently give them away.

    Exactly. The tax that has been imposed on fully automatic weapons and the extremely high price to purchase has effectively priced most people out of the full auto market. It is a back door way of implementing gun control. Most Americans can not afford that so in effect it is another way of trampling under foot your second amendment right.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Booga View Post
    I believe he's referring to the fact that you can't own one is many states. Second, you have to file for a specific and seperate firearms license to own one.

    Lastly, the full auto versions cost insane amounts of money in comparison to the semi-auto version here in the US. A $400 full-auto AK-47 sold around the world could be $2000 or more depending on where you are in the US.
    I wanted to get a silencer for my Walther, wife and I wanted to target practice at home (unfinished basement) and from what I understand to buy the silencer or suppessor, whatever you want to call it I had to apply for a TAX STAMP this would allow me to legaly own the silencer, I was also told it was the same deal if I wanted a full auto weapon?

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Rocketgeezer View Post
    I wanted to get a silencer for my Walther, wife and I wanted to target practice at home (unfinished basement) and from what I understand to buy the silencer or suppessor, whatever you want to call it I had to apply for a TAX STAMP this would allow me to legaly own the silencer, I was also told it was the same deal if I wanted a full auto weapon?
    Indeed, as far as I know, the same process needs to be followed to buy a suppressor as well. The tax is something like $200 I think. Don't quote me on that.

    However, in some states it is legal to own a suppressor, but you can't use it. The great state of Washington is one of those. There are legislators who fight for the right to use what people can own, but so far it has not become law.

    I understand that movies make suppressors seem like they turn guns into silent killing machines, but it simply isn't true. Sure, it reduces the noise, but it's not magic like Hollywood portrays. Ultimately, it would make us better neighbors if our guns were not as loud. Gun ranges could be less obtrusive. Practice at home could be done without shocking the neighbors. There are several benefits to suppressors.


  10. I still stand by my previous argument, and will back up Daugherty16's viewpoint. There has to be a line drawn somewhere in regards to what arms we are allowed to carry. It isn't about gun control, and it isn't about stopping crime. Today we already have enough issues with people shooting themselves or others, "accidentally." There was a civil war collector a couple years ago that accidentally shot off a cannon that ended up going through a neighbor's house end to end. Luckily nobody was hurt, but my point is that there is a high degree of training when dealing with militarily designed weapons, including fully-automatic rifles and machine guns. Changing the law so anybody can purchase a fully automatic weapon is not practical, nor smart, as the majority of American gun owners have absolutely no idea how to handle one correctly. Should we also be allowed to purchase grenades, RPG's, AAA cannons, etc? Should I be legally allowed to purchase a ZSU-23 for my backyard, as long as I can afford it? Do I have any idea how to use it correctly, and safely? Nope, but dammit it's my right!

    I'd be glad to support the right for people to purchase special types of weapons and explosives, as long as that there are certain safety and training standards to be met. Otherwise you'll eventually end up with a person hitting dozens of innocent civilians behind the bad guy he's shooting at with his fully auto Uzi.

    No special training = NO special weapons.

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 07:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast