|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Richard,
I only count 4 supreme court justices who may plausibly think that FA is protected by the Second Amendment at this time. Do you think it is wise to lose a case on Machine Guns and create more bad precedent? I'll read the filings and opinions tonight, but as I've said before: asking the courts for a fundamental right to machine guns at this time is like asking the girl you just met in the bar for anal sex after your first drink... -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Notice that RAH couldn't answer one question in a straight forward manner? that's because he's bull**** dependent. The simple fact that in the youtube video he lies through his teeth (or simply can't read the law) about what the McClure-Volkmer law means wrt transferable MG's show's what he's up to. The facts are that he had two legal avenues open to him to acquire NFA weapons that he refused to pursue demonstrates what the real problem is - he's not a member of the gun culture or the shooting community or any other group of like minded gunnies, he's an Island - the fact that He's Right! is the most important thing in the world to him, and the man is so poorly informed that he believes that being Right! has anything to do with prevailing in a court of law on any subject, not just Second Amendment issues. I do like the dig at NFA owners - he had his chance to do it legally, but that would just make him part of a crowd, so he had to appoint himself the main man and tear apart an unconstitutional law and bring down the members of the group he didn't want to be a part of. Anybody see a pattern here? Now that's he's lost, served his sentence and is waiting for the restoration of his right to own a BP wheelgun, all of us that have chosen to obey "unconstitutional" laws are the enemy the same way NFA owners were, and if his court case fouls up the gains we've made and are in the process of making, tough ****, he's Right!
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well. ___________________________________________ "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
It does not seem as if there is much that can be done at this point in time except for to try to support Mr. Hamblen as best we can and do whatever we can to make DAMN SURE that his case goes successfully.
That is my feeling anyways.
__________________
"No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer." |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
At a minimum, we need incorporation first, do we not? I wouldn't be surprised if the court could 'carve out' specific circumstances where FA could not be banned. If it is for is a state sanctioned militia, and a particular state authorizes it, I just don't see how it would not be protected. But a relative rogue, (sorry Richard, I think your are right, too) is not going to get the time of day on this issue right now.
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Here's what he could have done: have every member of his MP unit acquire a semi-auto AR variant, making sure each firearm was in a legal title 1 configuration, and then file a Form 1 on each AR to remanufacture the weapon to select-fire, citing the need for adequate weapons for the Guard Unit. After ATF refused the Form 1's, pursue a case the same way we did with Heller - plantiffs with clean hands and standing. It may not have won, but if it was lost it wouldn't pose the same danger that this case does as it sits. The truth is that this didn't start as a case against unconstitutional laws, it is a case of a guy who wanted NFA goodies without even attempting to comply with the law.
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well. ___________________________________________ "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
While I do agree in principle with a lot that Mr. Hamblen says and is trying to accomplish, I must concur with others who believe this is not the right time to make so bold a move.
The anti-gun advocates have incrementally attacked the 2nd Amendment and have been very successful at it. For us to re-establish in full the proper place of that amendment, will require equal attention to selecting the "battles that can be won" and discouraging the ones that will knock us back 3 spaces. We cannot afford to lose ground now. The states are clearly being influenced to uphold the RTKBA but to force the highest court to make such a concrete ruling at this time looks to me more of a provocation to incite rebellion than a rational means of affecting permanent change. I do not know if that is Mr. Hamblen's purpose but it does necessitate inquiry. I must say that I do admire you Mr. Hamblen, and do not agree with others that because there might be a legal way to procure MGs that somehow you should be vilified (and were incarcerated) for doing otherwise. To comply with irrational laws in essence justifies them.
__________________
NRA Life Member "no way as way...no limitation as limitation - Lee Jun Fan" "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree with the guy.If a right is a right. If a right can not be taxed. If an unconstitutional law is void, then he technically didn't break any law. If the Federal government is not allowed to restrict the right to keep and bear amrs, then the NFA and the other law in 68 seem to me pretty clearly void. Sometimes you have to just ignore the law. The problem I see is that too many in the "gun culture" are oddly so supportive of following the law, even the ones so unconstitutionally founded. Sometimes the rules are to be broken. |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Careful, strategic moves in the style of Mr Gura, and the incredible folks here and elsewhere is the clearest, surest way to restore rights. The house was not undermined at it's foundation, thank god. It was damaged from the roof down. Accordingly, it needs to be rebuilt starting with reinforcing the existing foundation (Heller) and building it back up from there. i: Incorporation ii: Shall issue iii: Arms in common use (rosters/AWB) iv: Arms suitable for militia/military use v: GCA and related tax issues Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 09-05-2009 at 9:41 AM.. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
That's a great ANALogy!
Quote:
;-) Anyways, it seems as if they're are plenty of people who think that all we have to do is show the Judges the historical facts and apply the logic and they will act accordingly. If it was really that simple we would have won long ago. Unfortunately, people have the right to screw it up for everybody.
__________________
NRA Life Member |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Machineguns.
The only way I see getting machineguns back is to get to Justice Kennedy.
Considering how much legal full autos now cost and the fact that there is a worldwide black market in full autos, going rate for a full auto AK47 in many parts of the world is around 100 USD. Iraqi citizens were allowed to keep full auto AK47's for home protection and other purposes. Someone in the US government determined that disarming the Iraqi population wouldn't be productive. If the US government felt full auto was so bad, they could have been a push to at least change the guns to semi auto only. When the NFA was enacted, the standard military arm was a bolt action rifle, during WW2 the semi auto M1 rifle became the standard and a self loading rifle was superior. Prior to federal meddling, militia arms were always equal or superior to what the government would issue to troops. We can win this battle, but we have to work the court of public opinion first. As more and more people view protection of gun rights as a check on government rather than something related to hunting or sporting purposes, we will be able to make the shift in the correct direction which ultimately will lead to victory in getting rid of federal infringements on our right to arms. Nicki |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
+100
__________________
NRA Life Member "no way as way...no limitation as limitation - Lee Jun Fan" "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Richard, for the love of the gods, drop your case! You're putting danger of us getting hit with bad precedent. The Gura method of dealing with this issue is the best way, because if follows the same forms of precedent that the NAACP and other allied organizations during the Civil Rights Movement with Brown v. Board of Education.
We already have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal lost to us due to Mr. Hollis Wayne Fincher last year on the MG issue. We will get to machine guns, but it's going to take a minimum of a decade. We NEED right to carry nationwide first, rebuild the gun cultures of a dozen states who were the worst against gun carriers (Cali, NY, NJ, Maryland), and get AW/Roster bans taken down. The most important part of our work is to get the gun ownership culture back in these states. The core of the potato is machine guns. We need to peel away the skin that involves the other stuff before we go for it. I live in a state which completely bans the civil possession of machineguns. I have to move a state south in order to do so, but my work and my job is here in Washington State. Your case will screw up ANY chance I have to have that in my lifetime. Do you want to be known as the Plessy case or the Bowers case? Then continue doing what you're doing. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Richard A. Hamblen responds:
More fuel for the fire... I would like to address, among other things, the issue of “not attempting to follow the registration laws first”. I think it is a little absurd, certainly nonsensical, if not downright ridiculous to criticize a man for not following the provisions of a law which he is claiming is absolutely contrary to the Constitution. Why would anyone even acknowledge any provision of a statute that runs counter to the Supreme Law of the Land, which is after all what the Constitution is? I think you all need to be reminded of the following: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it .... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- (American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177)” I presume that this this is still being taught in Law School today and that most of you agree with it. I have acted therefore in the best American tradition: I treated the law as the invalid statute that it is. I am accepting the consequences of my action and I am pursuing this fight to the bitter end in the prescribed legal manner. If Americans do not stand up for their rights, they will lose them. If the Second Amendment is an individual right, as the Heller court has said and the Constitution states, then it is to be exercised at the discretion of the holder of that right. The language of the Article says it “shall not be infringed”. When you have to ask permission to exercise a right, it then ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, subject to revocation by our masters at their pleasure. REMEMBER: THERE WERE NO FEDERAL GUN LAWS PRIOR TO 1934! My objection is that the Supreme Court established a standard in Miller for judging just what arms the NFA does not apply to (“part of the ordinary military equipment...of the type in common use at the time”), and then has refused, under the discretion they have been able to exercise since 1923 over what cases they will accept, to hear any challenge which actually meets those standards. As a result, the lower courts have misused Miller, and misrepresented it to their own purposes, to run roughshod over the Second Amendment ever since, just as they are misusing Heller. “Subject to reasonable restriction”? Just what does that mean, exactly, and who decides? I don't find “reasonable restriction” in my copy of the Constitution, which comes directly from the US Government Printing Office. The Founders were clearly able to insert “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment, so I must conclude that after four years of open debate, and ratification by the Constitutionally required three quarters of the states, that the omission of “reasonable restriction” from the Second Amendment was intentional. The Constitution has not been amended since then to reflect this language of “reasonable restriction”. I am challenging the Court to come out into the open to address this issue, so that the American Public can judge for themselves whether the arguments used to support the gun control regime stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. To those who decry my timing, or say “I would have done it differently”, or have a host of other criticisms, here is what I say: it is easy to cast aspersions when it is not your butt on the line. I exercised my individual right to keep and bear arms as defined by the parameter of Miller, the only time prior to Heller the Court addressed the Second Amendment. I was arrested, tried, convicted, and punished. I am now exercising my Constitutional right of appeal. This train has left the station, and if I have anything to do with it, it's going before the Supreme Court. If it fails to get there, it won't be for lack of trying. You can either assist in the effort and try to help achieve the best possible outcome, or you can sit on the sidelines and passively watch a bad decision come down, smug in your self satisfaction. To you gradualists I say: it has been 69 years between Miller and Heller. Are you going to wait another 69 years for another “well planned” case to reach the Court? How's that working out for you, anyway? “Subject to reasonable restrictions?” You who are trying that approach with these unConstitutional gun laws are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need to attack gun control at the source and that is what I am doing. The occasion of my case is Guns, but the real issue is whether the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land, and the utter contempt in which it is held by our government and Courts, and evidently a lot of the public. If the Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, then any ruling made by the Court contrary to the Constitution is invalid, or else the Constitution would no longer be supreme. If you are waiting for "Favorable Judges" I ask you: Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of men, subject to the arbitrary whims of whoever currently holds office? |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
And respectfully, I predict you will lose, and add yet more bad case law to the already bad 69 years worth of case law.
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thanks for addressing our questions.... Has he answered anyone's question? Or is his posts all quote form his philosophy? |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I was explaining this case to a fellow NFA guy, he loved the bit about NFA collections being worthless if RAH "wins." My friend's best line? "That guy crawled out from under a rock and into our tent."
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well. ___________________________________________ "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Jeff Cooper Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
The other problem is Hamblen is trying to say he has 2A rights because he is in a militia/military organization. That is in direct contrast with Heller, which states that 2A rights are for individuals regardless of militia membership. A ruling would make the right subject to whatever Congress decides the militia is that year, and nothing could be argued in court as the Constitution allows Congress to organize the militia, and thus set limits on membership.
How would we like it if Congress limited the militia to 28-30yos with 10 years of active service having attained the rank of E7 or O4? We would be screwed. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The militia purpose is as relevant today as it was pre-Heller, in my opinion. If unstated purposes such as self defense are relevant to the validity of the clause, then certainly it's only stated purpose continues to apply. Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 09-07-2009 at 5:11 PM.. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I really agree with this case and have the upmost respect for the man and his sacrifices but I think taking it to the court now is like asking a lesbian for anal sex when she isn't even liquored up and some hot girl is winking at her from across the bar. |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Maybe you haven't been following, but when it comes to civil rights cases, unless it comes to actual defenses at a criminal trial (4th, 5th and 6th), other civil rights cases are best filed by CLEAN plaintiffs that are not tainted by being tangled by a criminal case. This is why the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education were generally upstanding and law abiding, and didn't do the equivalent to what you did (basically walking on to the school and demand registration of your children and refused to leave, causing them to get arrested). You seem to be the latest in the line of self-important incompetent *******s (Kasler, Gorski, Don Hamrick, Hollis Wayne Fincher etc) who think that their plight, your need to be "vindicated", and the belief that you can throw a "hail mary pass", is more important than protecting the 2A rights of 31 million people. 20 million people (8th Circuit) already lost the ability to challenge lack of ability to register post-86 machine guns thanks to your fellow traveler Fincher, who basically made the same general arguments that you did, but in a different way. One Court of Appeals decision can be ignored by another Court of Appeals, but two of them is a lot more difficult kettle of fish. What part of "I want to own new Class 3 weapons sometime in my lifetime" do you not understand? Prove you're not actually a self important *******, and drop this case. You'll have a better chance re-litigating this issue after we rebuild the gun culture in the most populated areas of our country, and after we clear the way with plaintiffs not tainted by a criminal conviction, and can get standing by applying for a registration and being denied, you know, ways of challenging the law without ending up in prison, on probation, and putting your own family through unnecessary hardship, which you already did by acting self important. "I'm right!!!! I'm right!!!" is not enough to keep your house from getting raided and putting the lives of your own family at risk by your own actions. You brought this on yourself, you need to man up and own up to your ****up, and quit trying so hard to screw the rest of us over. Before you say, "But the founding fathers took a risk too with their families" because I know that's coming, let me make a few things clear: 1) You are not a Founding Father. 2) You will NEVER be a Founding Father. 3) You do not the civic virtu of the Founding Fathers. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
God i hope they don't hear this case....
We need more precedent first...why cant this jack *** realize this? |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The members of Calguns have considerable experience dealing with partially or fully unconstitutional laws, and the reason they asked why you did not even attempt to follow the law is a good one: because (if they take your case,) the Supreme Court justices will ask you the same question, and then you will lose your case. All self-righteous pontification notwithstanding. |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Well said, it was a blunt reality check, but your points are valid IMO.
Quote:
__________________
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison 'Letter to Edmund Pendleton', 1792 |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Even satellite links are too slow for streaming video. I get tired of the screen stopping while it buffers the next section. Also, there's too much junk there surrounding the useful stuff, from what I've seen.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If the person has something important to say, he'll create text that's easier to search and takes far less time to read than view.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
youtube almost never requires stop time to buffer for me.
pretty much click play and watch from beginning to end. most videos are under 10 minutes long. (although I always anxiously anticipate mises, 30-120 minute, presentations) |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
To Bill Strong and others
The law applies equally to us all, or else it is nothing more than an arbitrary exercise of power. I am merely asking that the Court to apply to me the same standard they established in U.S. v. Miller to ascertain the protection of the Second Amendment: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158 *** The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” (U.S. v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (emphasis added). “All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” clearly indicates that the right to keep and bear arms is universal and therefore individual, and “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” clearly applies to standard light infantry weapons such as the machine gun which are “part of the ordinary military equipment... [whose] use could contribute to the common defense” , as even the Solicitor General of the United States, Mr. Paul Clement, admits in oral arguments for Heller before the Supreme Court in 2008 (“I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is.”) My circumstances fit all these requirements. I gave plenty of “Judicial Notice” of the military application of my weapons in my trial. In addition, the Heller Court now reaffirms that the right is individual, as if Miller says anything other than that. The United States Government simply proceeded to apply the ruling they wanted to get in Miller and not the one they actually received, assisted by a compliant Supreme Court which has since refused to accept any case which meets the standard set in Miller. My case was up there at the exact same time as Heller in 2007. If in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule. This is not a state of Liberty. And this is a concession I make to no man or authority. We'll just have to disagree, Bill. I am not breaking new ground; I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Heller revised the Miller test; quoting the Miller test and ignoring Heller's statement about not overruling longstanding regulation against 'dangerous and unusual weapons' will get you absolutely no-where. The newest case applies first, if it is not clear enough then you go to an older case.
I hope you enjoy checking the box marked 'convicted felon' for the rest of your life, because you're not getting your conviction overturned with your current path of legal reasoning. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
if in your “real world,” Bill, we are dependent on the tender mercies of those administering the law rather than the absolute standard set by the law itself, then the law is meaningless and we are subject to arbitrary rule. and I am only asking for the Supreme Court to apply the standards it has already set, and, in so doing, obey the Constitution, which is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land You lambaste us for relying on tender mercies of the judiciary, and then you rely on the tender mercies of the top of that judiciary food chain, basically implying that only YOU can convince 6th Circuit and SCOTUS to strike down NFA '34? What are you, high? Can I have some of what you're smoking? You're not just a self important *******, you also think that you're better than the lawyers (Gura, Kilmer, Davis, Kates) who actually have made this their life's work and know what the federal judiciary can and won't do. The judiciary will not listen to a convicted felon on gun issues and the 2nd amendment, period. You are not a lawyer who's experienced on 2A cases. Last edited by Gray Peterson; 09-12-2009 at 1:53 PM.. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
amen!
Quote:
Thats what I would have said if I was even minimumally articulate, IDK if I even spelled "minimumally" correctly.
__________________
NRA Life Member |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
How so? What if the yet-to-be-defined dangerous and unusual means weapons that rise above the level of small arms? I read nothing in Heller that dismisses the militia or military purpose test. after all, Heller was about keeping a mere handgun in the home. The individual right issue was a happy necessity to deciding the case.
Quote:
Quote:
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Maestro:
Heller: Quote:
And from the verdict against Hamblen himself: Quote:
|
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That said, Hamblen's challenge is poorly timed, ill-conceived and for those reasons, will only do more harm than good at this time. I don't know the whole history of his case, and don't know whether he availed himself of any legal means to acquire or build those weapons through the state. He IS toast, but he is absolutely right. Those weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes include AR15s. Lots and lots of them. Select-fire is only uncommon because they were recently (1986) closed to registration, not because they were banned or because they weren't typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It's like the DC handgun ban: "You have to register your handguns, but we refuse to register them after a certain date" The ongoing history of full-auto ownership in this country is that any law abiding citizen may have them with a background check and a tax certificate. That, in fact, is still true today. So we have a legal conundrum, where it is lawful and constitutional to own a type of weapon, but the government has passed laws which make them impossible to own or afford for the average person, and illegal to buy new. This is an infringement. Full auto is not illegal, only regulated. And now nearly regulated out of existence for just about everybody, because the closed registration has driven the market value through the roof. Given the primary and only originally stated purpose of the Second Amendment (the first clause) it is impossible to seriously argue that the primary arm of the national guard and the four branches of the military shouldn't be the most protected weapon in the land. From Heller: Quote:
. . . which it most certainly is not. Quote:
But, as we have painfully witnessed in more than one or two wars, that sophisticated weaponry only goes so far in a conflict, and each conflict inevitably digresses into primarily close combat, which is usually where the campaign is actually won or lost. And the government would be highly reluctant to unleash such WMD upon it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own citizens. For these reasons, I submit that small arms, as an entire category of privately borne weapons should be off the table as far as any outright or effective ban. Full auto is harder to control, increasing the risk that rounds may end up unintended targets. It would seem reasonable, given the relatively increased indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present, that there may be an elevated level of training, screening, and regulation required beyond that required for semi-automatic weapons. But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice. Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 09-13-2009 at 8:33 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|