Poll re: Full Auto

This is a discussion on Poll re: Full Auto within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I just dont' want everyone to have a grenade launcher, I just don't want to see some ND's on those ... OK....

View Poll Results: What is your opinion of the private ownership of fully automatic weapons?

Voters
225. You may not vote on this poll
  • Readily available, with no restrictions

    103 45.78%
  • Readily available, with lighter restrictions than now exist

    88 39.11%
  • Keep the current system

    30 13.33%
  • Decrease availability and increase restrictions

    1 0.44%
  • Other

    3 1.33%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65

Thread: Poll re: Full Auto

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,697
    I just dont' want everyone to have a grenade launcher, I just don't want to see some ND's on those ... OK.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array mech1369dlw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    610
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    A person is justified in the use of deadly force, if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    The greater argument against registration is the right to privacy and 4A.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    That definition doesn't draw any distinction between rights and privileges. If they are synonymous, all of your arguments are right. But they are not...
    Ahh you were baiting, nice fishing. Things don't need to be defined by such a + / - thought process. It is not privlage vs right issue. A privilege is conditional and must be grant, a right is held by all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...Privileges are freedoms, the exercise of which is contingent on the permission of a third party...Rights are also freedoms, the exercise of which is not contingent on the permission of any third party, but only of the actor himself...
    Those are fine basic definations, but once put into application, nothing is absolute, all things are conditional. Your rights and privileges can not (without consequence in a just world) injure my rights and privlages (or the rights and privlages of the public at large). Everything in degrees depending on the circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...The right to life (and the defense of it) is a perfect example. I need no-one's permission to preserve my life. That is a right, unquestionably...
    In the next 15 minutes you need a pill to live but you don't have the money. Looks like the lack of permission by the druggist has hindered your preservation.

    You are holding a criminal at gun point, maybe after a purse snatching. As you wait, the criiminal states to you, when I get out, I don't care if it is 25 years, I'm going to kill you, and you will never see it coming. No matter how much you believe it will happen, no matter how likely 25 years from now you will not be ready, even if you see the guy walking toward you 25 years later, you do not have the preemptive right to defend yourself without permision (maybe some restraining order), even though that is the only action you can take to preserve your life.

    You may find an endangered animal in your back yard dangerous, but you will need permission to kill it, unless it attacks you. Most would add the words defend oneself against a violent act. What you consider violent act is not unquestionable, and thus the unquestionably of the right you assert is questioned.

    That is just considering your hypothetical's limitation of one relevant right. Not only can your actions forfeit your rights (you would state this fits into your definition), but contrary to what you assert, legaly, it is contingent on the actions of a 3rd party and the relevant rights and privlages involved. What if your right to information conflicts with my right to privacy.

    Then consider we are referencing personal rights, different than property rights (and privlages).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...What exactly gives the government the authority to demand a title document for possession of anything? Can it demand that you show a title proving your ownership of your labor? If you fail to produce such a document, can the government legitimately take your labor by force? What about title to your heart or your kidneys? Those are examples of both tangible and intangible property, after all....
    Almost every time you apply for a job, your citizenship is the title to your labor that legally allows you to be employed. Not only can some of your hypotheticals happen, some have happened. It took 13A to make slavery and indentured servitude unconstitutional (that means they were constitutional prior). I'm not sure if your heart or kidneys have been addressed, but it was desided you don't have title to your DNA. Also consider that you need a prescription for many drugs because they are "harmful." Many drugs are illegal (if not marijuana, consider steroids and antibiotics) even though people are capable of determining the risks. 1984 Organ Act makes it illegal to sell human organs and tissue. You can be compensated as a donors for time (labor?) for blood and other fluids (I think that is how it works). The research done on those parts is owned by someone other than you. You can't pass on the value of your parts to your heirs (and they have value). Who really holds the title to your body parts?

    At first, you made me laugh because you made me think about U.S. currency (though I guess that is more metaphorical then an actual title of labor). Still, here you have this note, that quantifies your labor and similiar intangables, that is the government's property, regulated by a privately owned company. It is a vaild question, who does have the title to your labor? Can't go much further, beyond forum's scope and rules, but I'm replying to your question.

    When I say the government can make almost any rule they want (including requiring a title) concerning the registration of property tangible and intangible (including firearms), I believe it. It is just a vote away. Personal rights can be differentiated from property rights, and have been since 1787 (and prior).

    The terms used are different, but firearm registration is a process of documenting the transfer of ownership to what would historically be a register of deeds that would serve as manager and custodian of public (and privlaged) records. Since property rights are rights enforceable against all other persons, laws can be passed to require a title to prove ownership, and liability.

    Maybe we don't use the terms title (registration card) or register of deeds (some LE agency or bureaucracy), it does not mean the principle is not the same, and is not something 2A addresses, so long as registation does not prevent ownership. The greater argument against registration is the right to privacy and 4A.
    Last edited by Thanis; May 20th, 2010 at 07:11 AM.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  5. #49
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    I just dont' want everyone to have a grenade launcher, I just don't want to see some ND's on those ... OK.
    I do because it is their right to have them.

    Period!

    "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

  6. #50
    Member Array guardmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    404
    Keep the Current, And the reason why is I dont see any use of a automatic weapon except for a SAW gunner in Afghanistan or Iraq laying down suppresive fire for his buddies... Ive fired a automatic M4 and its cool but when you go automatic your not accurate what so ever... They are not easy to control if you dont have experience, No need for people to have automatic weapons...
    “What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pike

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,048
    I don't see anything about "needs" in the Bill of Rights.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  8. #52
    Member Array guardmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    I don't see anything about "needs" in the Bill of Rights.
    touche
    “What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pike

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632
    THIS was posted in another thread on Texas knife law:
    Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
    (1) an explosive weapon;
    (2) a machine gun; "

    Are there any states which do not have a similar prohibition against full auto?
    Is there any case law in any in which a similar prohibition has been overturned by any appeal court?

    How do these state laws interact with the Federal law? Some here point out it isn't that difficult to get the tax stamp under Federal law. However, wouldn't you still be in possession of a prohibited weapon if you lived in Texas or a state with a similar and parallel law?

  10. #54
    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
    THIS was posted in another thread on Texas knife law:
    Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
    (1) an explosive weapon;
    (2) a machine gun; "

    Are there any states which do not have a similar prohibition against full auto?
    Is there any case law in any in which a similar prohibition has been overturned by any appeal court?

    How do these state laws interact with the Federal law? Some here point out it isn't that difficult to get the tax stamp under Federal law. However, wouldn't you still be in possession of a prohibited weapon if you lived in Texas or a state with a similar and parallel law?
    If you dig a little deeper in that same statute, you'll find this:

    (c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended.
    Most states have laws like this. There are a few which do not allow machine guns at all, even if NFA registered, but thankfully, TX is not one of them.
    "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. #55
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Thanis, I appreciate you taking the time to give me a well thought out reply. Your examples are logical, but they're based on what I believe is an incorrect premise - that there is no such thing as a right, in the sense that I describe.

    Yes, I baited you a bit with the definition of rights, but it highlights the key difference in our thinking. The definition and distinction of rights as opposed to priviliges is not academic. I believe it has real-world application beyond that of slogans and hyperbole. Let me descend into theory for just a moment to explain myself.

    If you examine the origin of rights, the question of why and how they exist, you will come to the conclusion that all rights stem from the fundamental right of self-ownership. Whetever your "self" is, your consciousness, the thing that makes you you, nobody else can lay claim to it. Contained in the ownership of one's "self" is the right to preserve it, as with any owned thing.

    From the right of self-ownership springs the right to own your mind, your abilities, your knowledge, your body, and your labor. Because it is your "self" that directs all of these things, they are also owned by you. Call it a package deal of being human. The ownership of these things also contain the right to preserve them, and are closely linked with the right to preserve one's "self," by the nature of human biology. This is the origin of the right to self-defense, btw.

    From the ownership of your labor and your mind comes the ownership of the products of that labor. This is the real start of what most people consider as property rights. If I apply my labor and my mind to a raw material like a piece of wood, and create a useful object from it, that useful object is owned by me and me alone.

    If I voluntarily exchange my labor with someone else, for pay in the form of goods of money, those goods or money become owned by me, to either use them myself or exchange them in turn for different goods or money, as I see fit. This is the origin of economic rights and is also where the idea of theft comes into play (though theft can also be applied at the other levels as well).

    As I said before, the catch in this unlimited definition of rights is that everybody has them. Your exercise of your rights cannot trespass on the exercise of anyone else's. By the way, this is why we call them "rights." It is "right" to have them, as opposed to "wrong" to deprive someone of them.

    The examples of needing a certain drug to live, or being threatened in the future do not pass the test of trespass onto another's rights. In both cases, if you steal the drug or pre-emptively attack the threatener, you have violated their rights, and therefore the acts are wrong.

    I do think it is important, though, to draw the distinction between "legal" and "right." Too often, these terms get used interchangeably, when they do not mean the same things.

    As you said yourself, slavery was constitutional and legal for a long time in this country, not to mention others. This absolutely does not mean that prior to the 13A, slaves had no rights. Of course they did, as conferred by their own self-ownership. Their right to ownership of their labor was being unjustly restrained. The fact that this was legal at the time in no way justifies or makes it right.

    Similarly, laws depriving me of the ownership of my body are unjust, regardless of what high power creates the law or refuses to change it. To say otherwise is to undermine what a right is, and re-defines rights as you have - merely privileges that are granted to all, and which may be hedged against or eliminated at any time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    When I say the government can make almost any rule they want (including requiring a title) concerning the registration of property tangible and intangible (including firearms), I believe it. It is just a vote away. Personal rights can be differentiated from property rights, and have been since 1787 (and prior).
    Indeed, the government can make any rule it wants, including such unjust things as the Alien and Sedition acts, or rounding up people of Japanese descent and shipping them off to government camps against their will, or establishing a fugitive slave capture system that conveniently side-stepped the need for due process. But just because the government does it doesn't make it right. Other governments have proved that far better than ours has, thankfully.

    On a side note, personal rights and property rights cannot be so easily disentangled. Both spring from self-ownership, as I discussed above, and one is not more important or deserving of more protection than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Maybe we don't use the terms title (registration card) or register of deeds (some LE agency or bureaucracy), it does not mean the principle is not the same, and is not something 2A addresses, so long as registation does not prevent ownership.
    That's exactly my point - registration does prevent ownership. It prevents ownership of unregistered guns. Just because I can purchase a registered gun does not invalidate the fact that I cannot purchase an unregistered one legally.

    This same argument was used by DC in saying that their handgun ban was not unconstitutional because it was not a ban on all guns which may be used for self-defense, but only handguns. This was flatly rejected in the Heller oral arguments, which used the analogy of banning books while claiming constitutionality by still allowing newspapers. The extension of this logic could easily be used to challenge mandatory gun registration, though I think it would need a considerable amount of previous RKBA groundwork to make it through the courts.
    "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?

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285

    Talking

    OK I've said this before and at the risk of being redundant I repeat.....

    FULL AUTO IS A HOOT!!!
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Fair enough Bob. Just want to point out three points:

    #1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...This same argument was used by DC in saying that their handgun ban was not unconstitutional because it was not a ban on all guns which may be used for self-defense, but only handguns. This was flatly rejected in the Heller oral arguments, which used the analogy of banning books while claiming constitutionality by still allowing newspapers. The extension of this logic could easily be used to challenge mandatory gun registration, though I think it would need a considerable amount of previous RKBA groundwork to make it through the courts.
    For certain, registration can be used to prevent ownership. However a firearm can be used in a crime. Just because something has happened, or could happen, does not mean it will happen.

    #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...I do think it is important, though, to draw the distinction between "legal" and "right." Too often, these terms get used interchangeably, when they do not mean the same things....
    You made a distinction between legal (rights) and (moral) rights. Please note I simply mentioned 2A does not prevent reasonable registration (and I thought it was more of a 4A issue). That statement addresses legality.

    #3
    I'm not sure where Mr. Cox stands on 2A vs registration, but in the Shooting Illistrated June 2010 issue, Chris Cox (NRA-ILA) stated, "Gun owners will need to choose their battles wisely; a premature or poorly argued case could set back our cause for years to come...applying the Second Amendment...wouldn't automatically deside exactly what restrictions are unconconstitutional...it's important to remember the Second Amendment isn't always a silver bullet, or even our only bullet."

    Silver bullet statements for all firearm related topics like "...shall not be infringed..." are just as poorly thought out as those who would assert, "...well regulated Militia."
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  14. #58
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    For certain, registration can be used to prevent ownership. However a firearm can be used in a crime. Just because something has happened, or could happen, does not mean it will happen.
    That's not quite the point I was trying to make. It's not that I'm worried about registration being used to deny all ownership, as is the case with post-86 machine guns. Mandatory registration, by definition, immediately prohibits ownership of a certain class of guns - unregistered ones. Prohibiting unregistered guns, just like prohibiting guns with certain physical features, is a violation of the RKBA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    You made a distinction between legal (rights) and (moral) rights. Please note I simply mentioned 2A does not prevent reasonable registration (and I thought it was more of a 4A issue). That statement addresses legality.
    Law should reflect right. The two cannot be separated, and to the extent that a law does not protect what is right, or worse, requires what is wrong, it is bad law.

    Right now, unregistered SBS's and unregistered AOW's are illegal. Their possession is prohibited by the NFA, and if I wanted to buy one, I could not (legally) do so. The privacy and 4th amendment objections raised against registration are also very valid and strong on their own merits. But we can't lose sight of the fact that prohibition of a class of weapons is still prohibition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    I'm not sure where Mr. Cox stands on 2A vs registration, but in the Shooting Illistrated June 2010 issue, Chris Cox (NRA-ILA) stated, "Gun owners will need to choose their battles wisely; a premature or poorly argued case could set back our cause for years to come...applying the Second Amendment...wouldn't automatically deside exactly what restrictions are unconconstitutional...it's important to remember the Second Amendment isn't always a silver bullet, or even our only bullet."
    I fully agree that we must be careful in choosing our battles. If we move too quickly, we risk backlash, which could be devastating to restoring our freedoms. This is why I believe that the Heller and McDonald cases are brilliant. They each took a narrow and clear question, and used them to lay a bit of groundwork. Strategically, this is much preferable to trying to get the whole ball of wax at once.

    All the same, that doesn't change what rights are, who has them, or the logical consequences of possessing them. I've been talking about theory and strict application of that theory with respect to machine gun ownership, not necessarily how best to get there from where we are today.

    Strictly speaking, screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!" at the TSA officer who told you you can't bring your LCR on the plane is perfectly correct, and is based on a logical, consistent extension of our fundamental freedoms. But it's not likely to convince anyone or win you any favors.

    Translating the theory into application, planning a path to achieve that application, and carrying out the plan can be long and arduous. But through it, we should never lose sight of the theory. The theory is the basis, the guide against which to compare the battles of application. Fighting for CCW expansion (for example) while simultaneously agreeing to restrict machine guns, because "they're scary" or "they could be used for harm," indicates that the guide has been lost, and therefore the plan with it. At that point, unless the theory is rediscovered, the battle is lost, and all that remains is deciding which arbitrary limits on your new privilege to keep and bear arms you will accept... and which new ones you will accept next year, and the year after that.

    Quotes like this one are exactly what I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Silver bullet statements for all firearm related topics like "...shall not be infringed..." are just as poorly thought out as those who would assert, "...well regulated Militia."
    While answering every anti-gun attack with "shall not be infringed" is poor tactics and ineffective as a rebuttal, it is not incorrect. If we pretend as though it is, to try to create "common ground" with our opponents, we've essentially just given away the farm, and recieved no "common ground" for it anyway. The trick is to find common wording to explain our fundamental principles. Don't shift the principles to fit the argument, shape the argument to fit the principles.
    "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?

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Using the anti argument that than the bad guys will use them is really a fairly lame. First off the reason the BG do not use full autos now is because their use brings the wrath of God and the full force of the federal government down upon them. I do not see anyone advocating changing how we deal with criminal acts committed with full auto weapons. In fact I am sure most would advocate far harsher penalties for crimes committed with full auto weapons say ten times that of crimes committed with other weapons. Second I would rather a BG be shooting at me with a full auto than a semi as their Hollywood spray and pray tactics will give them an empty gun in about 2 seconds allowing me plenty of time to place a well aimed shot COM before they reload
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by LongRider View Post
    Using the anti argument that than the bad guys will use them is really a fairly lame. First off the reason the BG do not use full autos now is because their use brings the wrath of God and the full force of the federal government down upon them. I do not see anyone advocating changing how we deal with criminal acts committed with full auto weapons. In fact I am sure most would advocate far harsher penalties for crimes committed with full auto weapons say ten times that of crimes committed with other weapons. Second I would rather a BG be shooting at me with a full auto than a semi as their Hollywood spray and pray tactics will give them an empty gun in about 2 seconds allowing me plenty of time to place a well aimed shot COM before they reload
    IDK, plenty of laws already out there. Say some teen (18-19) uses an auto to rob a gas station, no one was injured. I'm not sure it is just to provide the teen with a greater penality than the wife who shot her husband in his sleep with a 10/22 becaue he would not go see Twilight (even if he did say he would rather be shot then go see Twilight).
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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. Full Auto Fun
    By Captain Crunch in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 06:38 PM
  2. Full auto fun
    By dbracin in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 11th, 2007, 02:15 PM
  3. Full auto MP
    By bh153dc in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 9th, 2006, 09:11 PM
  4. Full Auto
    By 45ACP4ever in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 16th, 2006, 06:18 PM
  5. Some full auto fun.
    By P95Carry in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2005, 11:45 PM

Search tags for this page

nfa polls full auto suppressors ordinance

Click on a term to search for related topics.