The right of the people to keep and bear arms...

[Oldshooter]

Second amendment states-  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Shouldn't that include full auto "assault weapons" ( I use that term only because the anti gun lobby would) After all, the enemies of the free state, whether foreign or domestic will certainly have them. Since the S.A. was to ensure the capability of combating such aggression which would challenge the free states security, it only seems logical that the founding fathers expected the arms "we" carry to be equivalent to what the militia might face. Right?  You guys with law degrees feel free to weigh in. as well as you arm chair attorneys.
 
Wouldn't this be an argument the Supreme Court should hear in the event the celebrity in chief Dictates proposed gun legislation.
 

 

[JonnyReb]

 Not that I don't agree with your point of full auto accessability for the common man, but I believe that with the right permits, fees and background checks, your welcome to own full auto assault weapons. I did a construction job for a local ATF agent a decade or so ago, who told me he'd gladly run my paperwork through to allow me to purchase a full auto. I think it was 200 bucks and some paperwork. He'd background check me and i'd get the permit. I went so far as to look for a suitable weapon, driving to a shop in kings mt. N.C that specialized in class 3 weapons. The prices astounded me and I left. Never thought about it much since but unless the law has changed I think its just a matter of some hassle and some money.  Jeff

[Oldshooter]

I understand the claas 3 weapon permit and all but dont ya think that will go away with the proposed new gun grab. I feel sure that to get what he wants he will have to use his favorite ruse of presidential order or what ever.

[guzzijohn]

Some time back I started a thread, "where do you draw the line?" I don't have an answer for that. If we should be allowed to have equal access to the same weapons one may face that would have to include about everything except maybe nukes.
GuzziJohn

[tom548]

Full auto are fun, But in reality I would rather have a good semi auto with lots of ammo. The reason ,   I hate to wast ammo and would want 95% of my shots to be a kill. Spray and pray only looks good in movies. It is a big advantage when the enemy has people laying dead or wounded all around them and they have no idea were you are.

[Oldshooter]

I'm not feeling you guys on this.
 
Say you live in a small Texas border town. "The Cartel boys" are driving thru the streets with a pickup full of drugs, pot, cocaine whatever. You and your neighbor come out to see em dealing and you say hey what in the world. They bust out the Fully auto ARS they got from Fast and furious obama. One moderately trained pistolero can pin you down with your semi auto or bolt gun til they flank you or just smother you with fire power.
 
You are gonna stick your head out from behind the planter box on your front porch and take careful aim and take a couple of em out. Hmm. Maybe maybe not, prolly not!  Well the Law is only 15 minutes away maybe you should stay in the bushes and put your head between your legs so you can kiss your behind good bye.  Whats the line about the reason the Indians lost using arrows against rifles. I'm thinking its the SAME difference.
 
How about we hear from some combat veterans and see if they wanna face Chinese regulars with semi autos. Just sayin.
 
My intent here is not to stir up controversy but stir up the minds of good men who by government decree may be facing "enemies" with less than whats needed to defend the security of our great nation. Not to mention the fact that there may only be 3 to 6 percent that feel its even necessary to do so, as in the Revolutionary war.

[Mike in Virginia]

I'd like to have a full auto, but I ain't about to pay the fees.  Besides, neither myself nor you need one.  The day will never, I mean NEVER, that you will need it.  If you are non-police and non-military, your semi-auto will serve you just fine.  No one is going to take you out because you don't have a full auto.
 
Police should definitely have 'em.  Who knws what they'll come up against. 

[Oldshooter]

I'd like to have a full auto, but I ain't about to pay the fees.  Besides, neither myself nor you need one.  The day will never, I mean NEVER, that you will need it.(REALLY?)  If you are non-police and non-military, your semi-auto will serve you just fine.  No one is going to take you out because you don't have a full auto.
 
Police should definitely have 'em.  Who knws what they'll come up against.

Pardner I aint  talking about shooting coyotes or burgulers here. For these things, yea a single shot rifle or shotgun will do just fine but if you have to defend your home or neighborhood from folk that do have em and mean you harm. you may change your theory.
 
BTW did you read any of my previous post...?
 
My contention is that the founding fathers intended us to have the weapons we need to defend the security of our land. I'm not sure they had a clue what was coming, but you cant figger they wanted us to face enemies of the state with single shot muzzle loaders ya think?
 
What if the ememies of your security are the police or military?  Call 911  LOL!

[JPShelton]

I view the licensing of a right or taxation to exercise it as a serious infringement to that right and one that should not exist on constitutional grounds.
I do not view my fellow citizen's ownership of ANY weapon falling under the "small arms" classification to be a threat to my person.
I view people who tell me how I should exercise a right to be tyrants who are the antithesis of the preservation of a free state.  A person who will dictate to me how many rounds my firearm can shoot in a given time frame, how many rounds it can hold, what sort of devices can be attached to the muzzle, what configuration the stock is in, and what color the gun is, is a person who will also tell me what I should and shouldn't say, what thoughts are socially acceptable for me to think, what religion is tolerable for me to follow, what I can and can't put in my mouth, who I can copulate with, and so on.  And that is not freedom or liberty.  That is subjegation.
I would rather live in a United States where you can buy a full-auto Thompson, MP-5, or whatever, carry a handgun concealed or out in the open for all the world to see wherever you want to carry it, have as much ammo as you want, and so on than the United States I live in now, where people are all too willing to usurp my liberty for their self-centered sense of security.
As long as my fellow American doesn't threaten me with a loaded machine gun, how is his or her ownership of that gun or even bearing it in public a threat to my liberty, pursuit of happiness, or personal safety?
Whatever the individual weapons of the common military service person is in this country, I should be able to buy them, keep them, and bear them, anywhere within this country's territotial limits, without having to ask permission from the government, beg government for a license, or pay government some additional punitive taxation for the "privilage" of exercising a right.
The way this is supposed to work is that even if a minority think the common citizen should be allowed to keep and a bear a full-auto MP-5, their right to do so is protected from the feelings, attitudes, and beliefs of a majority who do not agree.  That is the difference between capricious "democracy" and republican democracy predicated on the rule of law, rather than the rule of current public opinion.
JP
 

[Oldshooter]

Whatever the individual weapons of the common military service person is in this country, I should be able to buy them, keep them, and bear them, anywhere within this country's territotial limits, without having to ask permission from the government, beg government for a license, or pay government some additional punitive taxation for the "privilage" of exercising a right.

You aint just whistling dixie Pardner! Thank you for your eloquence!

[tom548]

Get yourself a full auto and shoot it some it is a blast but, while you are spraying all over the place that guy with the semi will put a double tap in your chest. I have shot a lot of full auto and believe me most people are useless with then. I would rather have semi auto or 3 shot burst.

[tom548]

And don't get me wrong I love to shot full auto, just put 150 down range today into a 5 gal pail to see if some new mag worked as they should. Maybe 50% hit at 75 yd.

[Oldshooter]

Just to clarify.... Not saying I want a rifle that starts firing and ends with an empty magazine! Not what I was implying at all. I have only shot a fully automatic weapon at the range on occasion. All's I'm saying is that if we are gonna FACE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. We need to have the ability to return fire with them just as JPShelton said.  One must not assume that the person you are conversing with is an Idiot! To do so limits the ability to communicate inteligently, and discourages meaningful Dialog. I think a three burst weapon is adequate. Yes, training is a must and needs to be incouraged. No,... spray and pray is not the end all to a shootout. But if you are gonna face automatic weapons with a semiautomatic you will be at a disadvantage given both shooters are well trained.
 
Now that being said, the point of this thread was to stimulate the conversation about  the second amendment and its meaning in modern times.
 

[SharonAnne]

I assert that the meaning of the Second Amendment means the same today as when written. The average citizen has the right to keep and bear the arms equal to that of an average soldier in any standing army etc. That includes automatic rifles. They should be as available as their semi auto equivalents. 

Those that assert that semi auto rifles against full auto rifles are losers need to look back to the Falklands war. The Argentine army had full auto FN-FALs, the Brits had semi auto FN-FALs. The Brits did win.

[JPShelton]

Get yourself a full auto and shoot it some it is a blast but, while you are spraying all over the place that guy with the semi will put a double tap in your chest. I have shot a lot of full auto and believe me most people are useless with then. I would rather have semi auto or 3 shot burst.

I used an MP-5 during my tenure in law enforcement and also trained others in its use.  The comment above makes two potentially flawed assumptions, with the first being that the individual armed with the full-auto weapon is totally clueless with respect to maximizing its effectiveness and the second being that the individual with the "semi" has the skill and discipline to remain calm, cool, and collected enough to effect an accurate double tap in the face of superior firepower.  Furthermore, it matters not to me if "most people are useless with them."  What matters to me is that someone who wants to own one has to get permission from government and pay a punitive tax to own one, if they choose to do so, and I see that as an infringement on my rights as much as theirs -an infringement that should not be excused away in a supposedly free society founded on the guiding principle of the rule of law.
JP 

[tom548]

JP : Every thing you said is true. The problem is also every thing you said. Most people just can't use them and be proficient with them, I am far from clueless about full auto. The military has also found that they better with semi and burst weapons.
 
As far as the 2ND I feel you should be able to buy a full auto if you so desire , the only people that should be regulated are the criminals. The politicians  allways seem to regulate the law abiding person, I guess that is because we follow the laws the make and the criminals don't.

[SharonAnne]

a 'double tap' is seldom used or needed with a rifle.

[bosephus]

I'd like to have a full auto, but I ain't about to pay the fees.  Besides, neither myself nor you need one.  The day will never, I mean NEVER, that you will need it.  If you are non-police and non-military, your semi-auto will serve you just fine.  No one is going to take you out because you don't have a full auto.
 
Police should definitely have 'em.  Who knws what they'll come up against.

i bet you'd have been first in line at jones town to drink the koolaid

[Doublebass73]

Paying the government a $200 tax and getting treated like a criminal in order to exercise a God given right is absolutely an infringement. The NFA of 1934 and the FOPA of 1986 are both unconstitutional pieces of crap that effectively ended the common man from owning a full auto. I don't know about you but I can't afford to shell out $10,000 for an automatic rifle.

[yellowtail3]

If you are non-police and non-military, your semi-auto will serve you just fine.  No one is going to take you out because you don't have a full auto.
 
Police should definitely have 'em.  Who knws what they'll come up against.

My semi-auto probably will be sufficient. I'd agree. On the subject of okay for cops, not for me? Well... I'm so comforted by police hosing down innocent citizens driving pickups, with impunity. I'm not qualified to have a full-auto AR, but they are?


nuts.

[SharonAnne]

for a few years I was a representative of a small company that imported firearms from South Africa and Italy. The two I demonstrated were the Panther from South Africa, a controllable sub machine gun the size of a large pistol and the Spectre, a submachine gun with fore and aft pistol grips. It was perhaps the first with a quad stack magazine. Although supplied with a good quantity of ammunition I never did get proficient.  Full auto on an M16 or the less controllable M4 would be akin to throwing a handful of pebbles. While fun a full auto is more for keeping peoples heads down than actually shooting someone. In the RVN over 250,000 rds were fired for every hit recorded.

I would love to own several machine guns and automatic rifles. I can not afford to buy one let alone feed it.

[SharonAnne]

it matters not that I cannot afford a machine gun. Neither does it matter that I have no "need" for an 'assault rifle'. There is not "need" clause in the Second Amendment. I do not have to justify anything about owning a firearm. I am guaranteed the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS by the Constitution of the United States of America.

There is no "need" clause in the right to free speech. I am guaranteed the right by the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a "need" clause. The Rights are guaranteed, period. End of discussion.

[Androclese]

Not that I don't agree with your point of full auto accessability for the common man, but I believe that with the right permits, fees and background checks, your welcome to own full auto assault weapons. I did a construction job for a local ATF agent a decade or so ago, who told me he'd gladly run my paperwork through to allow me to purchase a full auto. I think it was 200 bucks and some paperwork. He'd background check me and i'd get the permit. I went so far as to look for a suitable weapon, driving to a shop in kings mt. N.C that specialized in class 3 weapons. The prices astounded me and I left. Never thought about it much since but unless the law has changed I think its just a matter of some hassle and some money.  Jeff

The Form 4 transfer is not a permit, or a license, its just a transfer of ownership much the same as for an automobile. Before anyone can process your paperwork at a Federal level it must be first signed off by local law enforcement, Police chief, city/District attorney, county Sheriff or Attorney, Commander of the State Police, or State's attorney General They will perform a records check of the applicant, and if there is nothing disqualifying in that report, they will sign the papers saying so. Then it has to go to BATFE along with the finger print cards, and Mugshots and $200 transfer tax (Postal Money Order) Then the FBI does an investigation, clasifies your prints, and pictures, and if all is well the transfer will be approved. All of these things must happen before approval can be made, so all a friendly agent might do is speed things up a bit (3 months instead of as much as 9)
 Prices are the problem, but you might find a private owner wishing to sell for a more reasonable price, and the form 4 process is the same for private transfers, as for dealer transfers. Local police will usually provide finger print cards (2) and print you, for a fee. Walgreens Passport pictures will serve for the mugshots. further, there are regulations for moving Class III or destructive device firearms across State lines, application for permission to do so must be made, and received before such weapons can be transported to another State. Some States have their own additional regulations, so you'll want to check that out before you start doing the lumber work.

[johnpaulh]

Full auto are fun, But in reality I would rather have a good semi auto with lots of ammo. The reason ,   I hate to wast ammo and would want 95% of my shots to be a kill. Spray and pray only looks good in movies. It is a big advantage when the enemy has people laying dead or wounded all around them and they have no idea were you are.

Yep, unless you have a weapon with a selector that does 3 round bursts...all you really have in your hands is a money hose....because of the Hughes Amendment in 84, prices for full auto weapons have skyrocketed, and there have been no new full autos available for civilians since 84 (nor old demils remade legally), so you are paying top dollar plus for weapons that are AT LEAST almost 30 years old (a 1928 Thompson SMG at 70 + years old can fetch $30k + easily).  i.e. a MAC 10/9mm in 1980 would set you back about $300-$350, plus the $200 excise tax stamp (that is what the $200 is, an excise tax, not a permit fee)  Now that same MAC 10/9mm, only 29 years old, will cost in the neighborhood of $1500-$3000 depending on maker etc....

Toys for the wealthy (or the fortunate who have friends that own them) Especially with ammo prices where they are now!!!

[Mike in Virginia]

 "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
That doesn't say or even imply you have a right to full auto weaopns.  Neither does it say we can have tanks or handgrenades.  Or rocket launchers.  Or nukes.  "Necessary to the security of a free state," reflects back to the immedately preceding phrase, "A well regulated militia."
 
You ain't the militia.  You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have a right to any arm you want. 
 

[Oldshooter]

I have to respectfully disagree. If you can only have semi auto or single shot rifles and the enemies of the security of your free state have fully automatic weapons, you are the "Indians" fighting for your survival with primitive bow and arrow against forces armed with breech loading firearms and repeaters. WE know how that turned out.
 
You make mention of only LEO and military needing them. My contension is that they may be the enemies of the free state. The founding fathers were just as concerned with government tyranny as foreign invasion if not more so.
 
The authors of the constitution had no clue what lay ahead in the development firearms or the extint that Government would try to usurp our freedoms, but they knew from experience that governments do that sort of thing.
 
I also disagree with the statement that we are not militia. We the people are the country and the militia. not just military and Leo.

[Mike in Virginia]

I wish it were that way.  Used to be that the people were the militia; now the people may have to answer to a militia.  They ain't ours at all.  They belong to the politicians. 

[jhm]

     Mike in Va. you still have some of that US and THEM mindset going on after you retired, quit or were asked to leave, it doesnt matter much but the LEO really dont need anything over and above the general public who you happened to work for, remember no matter if you were a city cop, county sheriff, state police, FBI, or any of the other agencys you want to come up with you were still just another employee of the people of this great country, I have seen alot of LEOs shooting and was never impressed, never had the oppertunity to watch any swat train but my Son in law was in a swat entry unit, and I often outshot him.  Not to start a Pissing match but we all need to get away from the US and THEM  attitude and we will all get along a little better.  Jim

[johnpaulh]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
That doesn't say or even imply you have a right to full auto weaopns.  Neither does it say we can have tanks or handgrenades.  Or rocket launchers.  Or nukes.  "Necessary to the security of a free state," reflects back to the immedately preceding phrase, "A well regulated militia."
 
You ain't the militia.  You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have a right to any arm you want.

It's a circular argument Mike.  You state "it" doesn't say we have the right to own "xxxxx" arm.  True.  "It" states nothing specific or definite except "shall not be infringed".  Doesn't say what we can, or cannot own, just says no one can F%$#& with our rights to own it.

[SharonAnne]

we ARE militia. anyone willing to bear arms in defense of the country is militia. It cannot be the National Guard since it was not created until many decades later. The Militia of the United States of America are the citizenry. The debates around the forming of the wording of the Second Amendment clearly show the citizens were regarded as the unorganized militia.

As for the arms of the militia it also is clearly indicated that the militia have the arms of the standing army so they will have cominality of arms and ammunition. Discussion of nukes and tanks is what in debate is termed reductum ad absurdum. Reducing to the absurd. You sure you are not Piers Morgan?