No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? - Page 3

No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

This is a discussion on No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by HotGuns For now, to own a FA you must live in a state that allows it. Then, you must be fingerprinted like ...

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 123
  1. #31
    Senior Member Array ZX9RCAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands, Texas
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post

    For now, to own a FA you must live in a state that allows it. Then, you must be fingerprinted like a common criminal and the FBI does a background check to prove that you are innocent. You have to ask the CLEO for permission. You have to provide a Mugshot of yourself. You have to pay 200 bucks and send it to the ATF. If the Feds deem you acceptable, several months later you'll get your permission slip that allows you to own the FA gun.
    The highlighted portions are not neccessay, one must simply get an NFA trust & all that can be bypassed.
    If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.

    -Will Rogers

    Im a big fan of the .22LR for bear defense.
    Just shoot the guy next to you in the knee and run like heck.


  2. #32
    Member Array n3ss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    210
    What weaponry will we not allow everyone to have? Grenades? TNT? 100 lb. bomb deliverable from a 4 seater?
    ... you mean none of that is possible now? It just a bit more difficult.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array ZX9RCAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands, Texas
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by n3ss View Post
    ... you mean none of that is possible now? It just a bit more difficult.
    True...I believe grenades & such fall under the AOW category & can be owned through a trust, although I am not positive.
    If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.

    -Will Rogers

    Im a big fan of the .22LR for bear defense.
    Just shoot the guy next to you in the knee and run like heck.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662

    re: Tubby

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    See, the black market doesn't care. They will just make their own, not buy new guns. That's the point you and other liberals just don't get.

    Legally owned NFA weapons are simply not used in crimes. Period. No argument.
    It is absolutely true that the black market doesn't care, and it is also true that thieves can and do sometimes steal stuff and BGs make their own. The issue is the ease with which a black market can flourish.

    Anything which becomes commonplace creates innumerable opportunities for theft and for black market sales. Do we really want lots of FA s out there where they can (and will with some frequency) get stolen and re-sold and used in horrendous crimes?

    The founders never envisioned a Gatling gun or an AR. This whole issue isn't about freedom or about 2A; it is about society being reasonable in the laws it makes and not allowing things it shouldn't allow.

    Get real here, what good is your LCP going to do you if the BG has an FA of whatever platform. NONE.

    There is a difference between being reasonably armed for reasonable situations, and having laws that promote dangerous anarchy.

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by ZX9RCAM View Post
    True...I believe grenades & such fall under the AOW category & can be owned through a trust, although I am not positive.
    Explosives are "destructive devices".

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is absolutely true that the black market doesn't care, and it is also true that thieves can and do sometimes steal stuff and BGs make their own. The issue is the ease with which a black market can flourish.
    It already would if it were possible. If criminal demand for such weaponry is so great, why aren't there rampant slayings with machine guns currently?

    Anything which becomes commonplace creates innumerable opportunities for theft and for black market sales. Do we really want lots of FA s out there where they can (and will with some frequency) get stolen and re-sold and used in horrendous crimes?
    I will not have my rights violated due to the 1% of the population that can't behave themselves. To think otherwise is an injustice to freedom.

    The founders never envisioned a Gatling gun or an AR. This whole issue isn't about freedom or about 2A; it is about society being reasonable in the laws it makes and not allowing things it shouldn't allow.
    We don't need more laws, we need more enforcement of current law.

    Get real here, what good is your LCP going to do you if the BG has an FA of whatever platform. NONE.
    It's not about the weapons, it's about the person deploying said weapon. That is being real.

    There is a difference between being reasonably armed for reasonable situations, and having laws that promote dangerous anarchy.
    It doesn't promote dangerous anarchy. That is absurd.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array ZX9RCAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands, Texas
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    Explosives are "destructive devices".

    Thank you for the correction, I thought they fell under the same category but was wrong.

    If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.

    -Will Rogers

    Im a big fan of the .22LR for bear defense.
    Just shoot the guy next to you in the knee and run like heck.

  7. #37
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Hopyard...

    IT IS MY RIGHT

    Not the suppression you are supporting.
    That is what you are supporting. Not I, Got it!

    When you can prove to the community that your belief in freedom control saves lives then I will start listening to this rhetoric about FA is bad and all that bull.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #38
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    ""The founders never envisioned a Gatling gun or an AR. This whole issue isn't about freedom or about 2A; it is about society being reasonable in the laws it makes and not allowing things it shouldn't allow. ""

    Who the heck on these forums owns a Gattling Cannon? I sure dont. So im not afraid that ill bump into someone knocking over the corner store with a Dillon Mini Gun are you??????

    GOD WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE!
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    RE: Tangoseal and others,

    Bottom line is I think you will find almost no support for what you want outside of a smallish sub-group within the gun owning community.

    The laws restricting these things and restricting the manner in which they are sold, transferred, taxed, have been on the books for nearly 80 years now. They have withstood legal challenge and so far as I know, there has been no effort by any legislature or Congress to seriously consider what you all are talking about. If you think about what was written in Heller, I doubt that even the pro-gun Supremes e.g., Scalia, would favor this.

    Except for blowing money on ammo, there is little point anyway. Yes, it would be fun to get out to a range and give it a run at some bottles. Yes, there could possibly be a HD situation where a burst would do better than a shotgun, but our society as a whole would pay a huge price if we started letting the types of arms we are discussing here become commonplace.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

  10. #40
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,910
    but our society as a whole would pay a huge price if we started letting the types of arms we are discussing here become commonplace.
    Nah. Society would actually pay cheaper prices for the guns in question. The price would eventually come down.



    sorry...couldnt resist...
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662

    re: HG

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Nah. Society would actually pay cheaper prices for the guns in question. The price would eventually come down.



    sorry...couldnt resist...
    Well, HG, its not my hide on the line every day. If your dream day is a firefight with automatic weapons, you are welcome to the fun.

    Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to hope for your safety every day.

  12. #42
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Right now the odds of you having such an encounter are very limited. If you got what you wanted, there would be many more in circulation, many more on the black market, and many more stolen.

    Moreover, your job is already too darn dangerous and would become even more so. And, where do we as a society draw the line? What weaponry will we not allow everyone to have? Grenades? TNT? 100 lb. bomb deliverable from a 4 seater?

    Just as 1A has some limits, there is a point at which 2A needs some limits as well.
    That's a straw man. We're not talking about grenades, TNT, bombs or anything besides machine guns. If you want to start a thread on the side, I'll be happy to tell you exactly why all of the above and more are the right of every free man to possess, even though that right is currently being squashed.

    Your assertion that rights are really just very important priviledges, subject to arbitrary limits and conditions imposed by the state, is also wrong. It's a popular falsehood, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of rights and how they are derived. If you truly believe what you say, you aren't describing rights, and should be referring to the priviledge of keeping and bearing arms or the priviledge of free speech.

    Whether or not there would be more full-autos in circulation, and therefore more stolen, isn't the point. The point is that what criminals may or may not do with them should have no bearing on whether I, as a non-criminal, can legally purchase and own them without jumping through useless hoops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is absolutely true that the black market doesn't care, and it is also true that thieves can and do sometimes steal stuff and BGs make their own. The issue is the ease with which a black market can flourish.

    Anything which becomes commonplace creates innumerable opportunities for theft and for black market sales. Do we really want lots of FA s out there where they can (and will with some frequency) get stolen and re-sold and used in horrendous crimes?
    What makes FA's so incredibly different from SA's in your argument? Criminals can and do steal and use semi-auto guns in crimes. Do we really want so many semi-autos out there? Semi-autos are very dangerous in the wrong hands, yet I could drive to Academy tonight and buy as many as I want. Isn't this terrible?! And yet, society hasn't crumbled to bits.

    It would be no different with FA's. Yes, some would get stolen, some would be used in crimes, just as handguns are today. But that is no reason to take them away from law-abiding people, or even to make them hard to get.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The founders never envisioned a Gatling gun or an AR. This whole issue isn't about freedom or about 2A; it is about society being reasonable in the laws it makes and not allowing things it shouldn't allow.

    Get real here, what good is your LCP going to do you if the BG has an FA of whatever platform. NONE.

    There is a difference between being reasonably armed for reasonable situations, and having laws that promote dangerous anarchy.
    Think through that line of logic about the founders. Did they envision the internet or forums like this one? Did they envision cell phones or CCTV? Probably not, but these technologies are not exempt from the protections of individual rights that the constitution states.

    In the same way, when we're long dead, and our great-grandchildren have this same conversation about whether handheld particle cannons are too dangerous to be sold to the public, the 2A will apply then too.

    And your LCP may well save your life against a guy with a Glock 18 if you shoot him twice through the heart and once through the forehead while moving off center-line when he's distracted by the wallet you just threw on the ground. Whether he has an Uzi or a Lorcin is really immaterial, and your response to a life-threatening situation should be the same - defend youself with whatever means you have.

    Now imagine if you were CCW'ing a Glock 18 or a Beretta 93 (legally) and were attacked by a group of six thugs armed with baseball bats and 2x4's. wouldn't it be nice to have that small extra edge of being able to defend yourself with burst of 4 or 5 rounds at a time? Would it be such an advantage over a Glock 19 that you could laugh at their pitiful attempts and easily overpower them? No, of course not. But it might be just enough to keep you alive.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    RE: Tangoseal and others,

    Bottom line is I think you will find almost no support for what you want outside of a smallish sub-group within the gun owning community.

    The laws restricting these things and restricting the manner in which they are sold, transferred, taxed, have been on the books for nearly 80 years now. They have withstood legal challenge and so far as I know, there has been no effort by any legislature or Congress to seriously consider what you all are talking about. If you think about what was written in Heller, I doubt that even the pro-gun Supremes e.g., Scalia, would favor this.

    Except for blowing money on ammo, there is little point anyway. Yes, it would be fun to get out to a range and give it a run at some bottles. Yes, there could possibly be a HD situation where a burst would do better than a shotgun, but our society as a whole would pay a huge price if we started letting the types of arms we are discussing here become commonplace.

    That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
    You're entitled to your opinion, for sure, just as I am. Appealing to the length of time a right has been infringed on is somewhat disingenuous, however. The fugitive slave act of 1793 was on the books for a great long while, up to the civil war I believe, and nobody, including the SCOTUS, would touch it with a ten-foot pole. That didn't make it right, nor should it have.

    Btw, the only NFA case I'm aware of that made it to the supreme court was US vs Miller, and that dealt with a short-barreled shotgun, not machine guns. Not to mention the "peculiarities" of the case, given that Miller never appeared in court to argue it (I think he was dead at the time).

    Heller tip-toed around machine guns in oral arguments because it wasn't part of the substance of the case before them. It was the right thing to do, and smart of Gura to avoid being dragged off-topic. But there is still much to be discussed if there is ever a challenge to NFA '34 or FOPA '86 with regard to machine guns. Given what I read in the Heller decision, it would be a feat of mental gymnastics to seriously describe machine guns as anything other than arms is common use, and therefore protected under Heller.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    I believe, with the right argument, that these restrictions could be done away with.

    Part of the problem is the ignorance of the populace regarding to automatic weapons, suppressors, etc.

    What's the difference between a 9 shot burst from a 9mm Uzi or an 18 shot burst of 00 buck, from a double barrel shotgun?
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  15. #45
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,910
    You may be right Zacii.

    Popular support or unpopular support matters not in legal issues. Someone willing to spend the money on a good lawyer could press the issue and force it all the way to the top.

    The right lawyer with the right argument might do it...if the Judges that hear it aren't social activists that try to legislate from the bench.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 8th, 2010, 02:09 AM
  2. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 6th, 2010, 01:26 PM
  3. Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 07:23 PM
  4. Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 09:28 PM
  5. Lou Dobbs: Rights under fire
    By BlackPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2009, 04:57 AM

Search tags for this page

bearable arms

,

register select fire weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors