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; Honest and criminals are not mutually exclusive. There are honest men and criminals staring at and making the shadows. I have never been completely set ...

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 123

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

  1. #106
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Honest and criminals are not mutually exclusive. There are honest men and criminals staring at and making the shadows. I have never been completely set about the makeup of the top level. I generally think it’s like all the others, smart animals capable of almost any array of motivations and persuasions. Stupid idealism holds me back from complete acceptance.
    Also you forgot about a third option. What is the most economical as far as cost benefit, it is not a one or the other world, look at the constitution and set up of the US government, it is a compromise between individual rights and the concern of society as a whole. You trade of freedoms for security, the original reason for people to come together. Remember we give up rights just to belong to society when we enter a social contract.
    Interesting to know that machine guns are easier to use and are mechanically simpler then semi automatics. I don’t really care to find out, I would much prefer a double rifle in some Nitro Express cartridge, I think I could find uses for it besides the range.
    Just like libel and slander arms can harm people. Even deprive them of their life. Some argue that your life is the thing you have an ultimate right to.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #107
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    Also you forgot about a third option. What is the most economical as far as cost benefit, it is not a one or the other world, look at the constitution and set up of the US government, it is a compromise between individual rights and the concern of society as a whole. You trade of freedoms for security, the original reason for people to come together. Remember we give up rights just to belong to society when we enter a social contract.
    Any cost-benefit analysis would fall under utilitarianism - the idea that it's ok to harm some people so long as a greater number of people benefit, or seem to benefit, or if really stretched to its limit, could benefit. It boils down to "the ends justifies the means," which as we've seen throughout history, can be used to justify any atrocity.

    As for trading freedoms or security, I believe Franklin had a famous quote about that idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    It's a false choice. You don't have to give up rights to live in society with other people. To say that there can be a "compromise" between the free excercise of rights and the benefit of society is to put them at odds. The logical extension of this is that "society" would be best if there were no rights excercized at all, which is clearly false.

    The fact is that society exists to protect the rights of its members, not to destroy or even limit them. Unfortunately, this seems to be lost on some people, and they continue to believe that unless they live on a deserted island like Robinson Crusoe, their rights are subject to the whims of others. Whether it's the whims of the majority (democracy) or the whims of a ruling body (elected or otherwise) makes no difference. It's still not true.
    "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?

  4. #108
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    I remember getting yelled at by people here for bringing "God" into the picture about the founders. It was never about God but about knowing what they believed in.

    People still don't understand the founding fathers. If you are a foreigner I could imagine that you may not quite grasp it but if you are native born there is no excuse for a lack of understanding.

    It is your duty as an American and you have failed if you think we are a democratic nation by design.

    Hence why I am and others are griping about the loss of rights to select fire weaponry.

    And Im not responding to you Bob. You are dead on right.
    "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

  5. #109
    Member Array HerbM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    42
    [New to the party (thread) because I am new to the forum.]

    Agreed that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy automatic firearms.

    This is the true meaning of the "militia" noun phrase (it isn't even a subordinate clause, just an explanatory phrase grammatically.

    The 2nd Amendment as written protects at least those individual arms commonly issued to the infantryman or the (para-military) police or other law enforcement.

    Even Associate Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg understood this during Heller v. DC oral arguments.

    Presumably she thought this inescapable logic was reason to deny Heller his rights, but taking the rights of a law-abiding citizens due to the possible bad behavior of some criminal is never justified.

    Were the Constitution to allow this, we would simply go back to allowing the police to skip the Miranda warnings and even coerce confessions from the 'obviously' guilty.

    But none of us wants to live in THAT country.

    Obviously, we could arrest and convict a lot more criminals doing that and mostly we would only interfere with the rights of criminals, but long ago we decided as a nation that it is better to let the guilty go free rather than abuse the rights of the innocent.

    Even Liberals seem to understand immediately and intuitively that we will let murderers go free (to murder again) rather than abuse the law-abiding citizen.

    Of course, not gun control law has EVER been shown to work. (Really, not one!)

    None of the US Department of Justice, CDC, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.

    Even 'obviously sensible' laws such as Brady/NICS background check for firearm purchases are included -- they cannot be shown to work and are in fact not even enforced ON CRIMINALS.

    Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
    http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf

    Clearly a law that cannot be shown to work, and which is only enforced on the law-abiding is an egregious infringement of freedom.

    That is just COMMON SENSE, right?

    --
    HerbM

  6. #110
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,746
    Clearly a law that cannot be shown to work, and which is only enforced on the law-abiding is an egregious infringement of freedom.

    That is just COMMON SENSE, right?
    Maybe we should redefine it as uncommon sense. Seems like it's not too common, anymore.

    I most certainly agree with your statement.

    Bob The Great: you are spot on. You were able to articulate in text, what I was thinking.
    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

  7. #111
    VIP Member Array jonconsiglio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Posts
    3,168
    Because all the collectors would be screwed with their $15,000+ autos or their $12,000 auto sears.
    Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~Paul Howe

  8. #112
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    Screw collectors. I want my rights back. Collect that!
    "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. #113
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by jonconsiglio View Post
    Because all the collectors would be screwed with their $15,000+ autos or their $12,000 auto sears.
    More than half polled on Subguns said they wouldn't give a rat's butt.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  10. #114
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    More than half polled on Subguns said they wouldn't give a rat's butt.
    Agreed. I don't own any NFA items myself, but of the owners I've spoken to, there were exactly zero who didn't want the post-86 ban overturned.
    "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?

  11. #115
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,638
    I hate to even start this, but the 2nd Amend. only says the right to bear "arms," not firearms of any kind. Gov't at any level could probably restrict those "arms" to .22LR and not violate the letter of the law as regards to the 2nd Amend. I'd hate for them to even consider that approach.

    Unfortunately, our forefathers, as far-sighted as they were, failed to consider machine guns as one of the "arms" we should have, seeing as muskets and dueling pistols were the order of the day.

    Maybe we should be happy we still have out handguns, rifles, and shotguns and focus out efforts on maintaining that right.

    But if you're intend on having an automatic weapon, then by all means, apply for the proper license and obtain one.

    Me? I think a nice howitzer towed behind my truck would be nice. It's an "arm" also. Tough to conceal though.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  12. #116
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,039
    Howitzer and cannon are "ordnance". Arms traditionally are defined as weapons that can be borne by arm ie readily carried. Arms aren't necessarily "firearms" as many think. Clubs, knives, swords are also arms.

    Using your logic, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect things posted on the Internet, or with a typewriter, or spoken over telephone, recorded on video film, digital images or voice recordings, etc. Only protects ink and quill, 18th century printing press technology, and spoken unaided word. Right?
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  13. #117
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    Tubby hahah right on ...
    "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

  14. #118
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    Howitzer and cannon are "ordnance". Arms traditionally are defined as weapons that can be borne by arm ie readily carried. Arms aren't necessarily "firearms" as many think. Clubs, knives, swords are also arms.

    Using your logic, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect things posted on the Internet, or with a typewriter, or spoken over telephone, recorded on video film, digital images or voice recordings, etc. Only protects ink and quill, 18th century printing press technology, and spoken unaided word. Right?
    Lighten up Tubby45, it was muchly tongue in cheek. I'll figure out a way to cayy the cannon, thus making it an "arm."
    And your first Amend claims about the internet, etc. Well, SC seems to think the original amendment covers that today, so why wouldn't the same logic apply to auto weapons? Pen & ink=internet. Roundballer =fully auto?
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  15. #119
    Member Array HerbM's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    42
    Actually cannon and such probably are protected by the 2nd Amendment -- if so, and that becomes a significant problem then it may require an amendment to 'fix'.

    But such has never been a problem.

    We know that the 2nd Amendment protects AT LEAST the arms commonly carried by the individual infantryman or police officer.

    As long as those folks are issued semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, automatic rifles, and even light (squad) machine guns then these are protected by the letter of the 2nd Amendment -- in fact by that pesky 'militia phrase' which sets the CONTEXT for the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed."

    Militia is essential to a free nation. (Means we cannot do without it and remain free), and this gives the reason for the GOVERNMENT interest in protecting the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

    The right exists for WHATEVER (lawful) purpose the individual wishes, e.g., hunting, sport, self-defense, militia service, etc, but the government's compelling interest in this right is to ensure the government (itself) remains free.

    As to a license, any RIGHT requiring a 'license' is not a right at all but a favor you must beg from bureaucrats or tyrants.

    There is also the issue that when a "tax stamp" is an appreciable cost of the item being taxed it is in fact NOT merely a tax but a method of controlling people and who can possess that item.

    Using high priced licenses, difficult to obtain, makes it easy for government to deny such rights to the poor. We have a plethora of court decisions showing that rights cannot so be denied to the poor who tend to be minorities, elderly, etc.

    --
    HerbM

  16. #120
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Unfortunately, our forefathers, as far-sighted as they were, failed to consider machine guns as one of the "arms" we should have, seeing as muskets and dueling pistols were the order of the day.
    The founding fathers had no problem with citizens owning muskets and dueling pistols. These were the very same arms issued to troops in that day. They did not place restrictions on guns used by civilians that would make them any less lethal than the arms solders of the day were equipped with.
    They knew that the people needed weapons that would be capable if needed to counter any that might be used against them.

    Michael

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 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.