NFA '34 levied a $200 tax stamp on them. There are many machine guns in private hands, "legally".

There are 186,619 transferable machine guns in the USA. Only machine guns lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986 qualify.

And they’re all registered, so the BATF knows where they are, yes?

And if one man, say, who runs a mosque or has a compound out in Idaho, accumulates 15, 20, 30, 1000 of them, the government will know that, because those weapons are tracked, true?

If a mosque or a militia starts accumulating legal machine guns, there will be government spies sent to see what is going on, yes? We don’t pretend that the accumulation of machine guns is like collecting flowers, because we’re not obligated by the 2nd Amendment to be blind idiots. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Right?

There are 186,619 transferable machine guns in the USA. Only machine guns lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986 qualify.

Those machine guns are all full auto, I assume?

And they’re all registered, so the BATF knows where they are, yes?

All full auto machine guns. Only those machine guns lawfully in civilian possession before May 19, 1986 may be lawfully in civilian possession today. If a machine gun was not registered on a Form 4S prior to May 19, 1986, it may not be lawfully transferred to a civilian today.

No new machine guns may be manufactured for civilian possession. No weapon of new manufacture can be registered on Form 4S prior to May 19, 1986.

The restricting issue, and the cost inflating issue, is not the $200 tax stamp. All such weapons must have been owned and registered before May 19, 1986. Demand exceeds supply, and unless the law changes, supply will never exceed the 186,619 of such registered weapons that existed in 1986.

BATF may not know where they are all at, but they know who they are registered to and in whose custody they are supposed to be.

And if one man, say, who runs a mosque or has a compound out in Idaho, accumulates 15, 20, 30, 1000 of them, the government will know that, because those weapons are tracked, true?

Their lawful transfer generates a required paper trail. They must authorize the transfer, or the unauthorized transfer of the weapon results in unlawful possession and a weapon that may be seized as contraband.

If a mosque or a militia starts accumulating legal machine guns, there will be government spies sent to see what is going on, yes? We don’t pretend that the accumulation of machine guns is like collecting flowers, because we’re not obligated by the 2nd Amendment to be blind idiots. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Right?

I believe all you said is correct.

Of possible interest:

Saul Cornell and Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487 (2004).

Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol73/iss2/3

Saul Cornell, St. George Tucker and the Second Amendment: Original Understandings and Modern Misunderstandings, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1123 (2006).

Available at: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol47/iss4/3

Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s.

No,they haven't. It would be un-Constitutional to ban them,so the goobermint came up with a permit system called a "Class 3 Licence" to buy,own,or possess full-auto weapons and "weapons of mass destruction".

You have to fill out feral papers and have them approved by your local Chief of Police or Sheriff,and he has to send them off to the feral government. I forget now how much the "tax stamp" costs for each weapon these days,but IIRC,it was 300 bucks back in the 30's when this un-Constitutional insanity started,and that was a massive amount of money at that time.

The fee remained at that level until Bubba and a DIM Congress managed to achieve a run-around the Constitution by the simple method of destroying every surplus Class 3 weapon in their inventory. This in effect is a ban because there are no longer any more surplus full-auto weapons to be released,and this means the price for something simple like a M3 Greasegun that used to be available for 400-500 bucks is now several thousand bucks,and getting more expensive every day.

Bubba even had surplus weapons we gave to other nations confiscated and destroyed or put out of reach by dumping them in the deep ocean. I personally knew people who told me that what looked like brand new BAR's,Thompsons,M-2 Carbines,M3s,and M-14's were taken out to sea and dumped with BATF agents supervising and writing down the serial numbers.

No problem for Bubba and his bodyguards because the government provides full auto weapons to guard him and his family,and no real problem for his golf partners,because it is chump change to them.

There is no longer any practical way for a blue-collar worker to legally own one because he just can't afford it.

As a society, we have drawn the line at automatic weapons. You can have semi-automatic weapons, but full automatics are difficult to come by legally, and buying one requires a lot of extra steps.

This seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. These are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.

In a similar vein, I don't mind if airplane aficionados buy and fly World War II bombers. I do mind if they are able to arm them with bombs.

This proves you don't know WTF you are talking about.

Trump will sell anything to the Saudi's, but US citizens have infringements.

You really are turning into a fucking idiot.

Machine guns have been illegal for nearly a century.

Really? Damn shame you weren't around to hear my local sheriff tell his secretary to sign off on anything I wanted,including machine guns,without having to ask him when I applied for my CCW permit.

That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.

Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.

How about nukes? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee your right to have a personal nuke in your basement?

Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.

The founding fathers knew that wanabe tyrants will always exist, so arms parity with the military.

Come and take them, Piers13!

arms parity with the miltiary

So, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess your own personal nuke?

So, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess your own personal nuke?

I've have a zero 'Unexpected Event' record.

Texas Nuclear Weapons Facility Pantex Activates Emergency Response Team Because of 'Unexpected Event'

I've have a zero 'Unexpected Event' record.

That's swell. But do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?

[Vicomte13 #36] Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s.

[sneakypete #45] No,they haven't. It would be un-Constitutional to ban them,so the goobermint came up with a permit system called a "Class 3 Licence" to buy,own,or possess full-auto weapons and "weapons of mass destruction".

[sneakypete #46] That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. These are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.

The Second Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Your position that a ban of machineguns would be unconstitutional is explicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008).

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?

No, it's a God given natural right.

it's a God given natural right.

The U.S. Constitution does not protect those rights. Enjoy your bombs in the afterlife.

bombs in the afterlife.

Yeah, sure Mohammed.

Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.

Yes,in FACT,it IS legitimate.

The 2nd Amendment was written so that US citizens would have ready access to military-grade weapons in case any future governments seized power. They realized that the people could not fight a professional military without military grade weapons.

They even wrote in discussion that individual Americans would be guaranteed unrestricted access to "weapons such as carried by typical soldiers". In Colonial times this mean smooth-bore muskets as a MINIMUM/

Crew-served weapons were maintained by villages and cities,for issue to the militia if they were called up.

The exception to this were ships,which were allowed to carry cannons.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting,gun collecting,or target shooting. They are just side benefits. The 2nd Amendment exists so American citizens would have the ability to defeat a standing army if it ever became necessary.

Ok, let's play then. Machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment, you say.

How about nukes? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee your right to have a personal nuke in your basement?

Are nukes individual weapons,numbnuts?

That's swell. But do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?

While it seems clear your understanding of firearms is immense,could you help out those of us who aren't as knowledgeable as you by splaining to usens how a automatic rifle is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb or missile?

The Second Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Your position that a ban of machineguns would be unconstitutional is explicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008).

Heller is not only wrong,it is un-Constitutional. It was a anti-gun brain fart ran though a cherry-picked anti-gun district court in Washington,DC.

That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

Machine guns were first issued to US troops in the 1800's,and this just goes to show you how freaking ignorant of reality the DC court was and is.

. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Legalize mumbo-jumbo bullshit with NO historical fact behind it. There were NO legal restrictions on weapons before the 1930's,and in FACT you could order a machine gun from a Sears catalog if you wanted. That communist bastard Roosevelt and his commie wife-cousin were behind this.

This is a PERFECT example of our courts using their power to break the laws themselves. The only reason these laws still stand is because no court that has the authority to overrule them is ever allowed to take the case.

The U.S. Constitution does not protect those rights.

Yes,it does. The fact that corrupt judges use their political biases to break the laws themselves is irrelevant.

The 2nd Amendment says what it says,not what anti-gun asshats in black robes want it to say.

do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?

No, it's a God given natural right.

WRONG!

Nuclear bombs are CLEARLY crew-served weapons,and the 2nd Amendment only refers and applies to weapons "typical of those carried by the common soldier."

The fact that corrupt judges use their political biases to break the laws themselves is irrelevant.

The 2nd Amendment says what it says,not what anti-gun asshats in black robes want it to say.

The interpretation of the Second Amendment given by the U.S. Supreme Court is the recognized law of the land.

Nobody gives a crap what some cranky old asshat blogger has to say.

This is the irrationality of libertarians. They think their hairbrained opinions are the law. Reality says it just ain't so.

the 2nd Amendment only refers and applies to weapons "typical of those carried by the common soldier."

That's bass ackwards.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Syllabus

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Machine guns were first issued to US troops in the 1800's,and this just goes to show you how freaking ignorant of reality the DC court was and is.

Reading the laws would show you just how ignorant of the law you are. When machineguns were first issued to U.S. troops is irrelevant. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Heller is not only wrong,it is un-Constitutional. It was a anti-gun brain fart ran though a cherry-picked anti-gun district court in Washington,DC.

That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

You have no clue what you are talking about. It is just typical libertarian nonsense.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627-28 (2008)

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto and the Teachers' Unions, and you, have the God- given right, in your mind, to posses nuclear weapons. The only reason they can have one and you can't, according to you, is that they can afford to get one, or ten, and you can't.

You have indeed taken your belief system to its logical conclusion. This puts you on a desert island with few other people - certainly not enough to actually defend that interpretation against the rest of the public, who recognise that we cannot permit the private possession of nuclear weapons for reasons of our security, freedom and continued lives.

So, since YOU won't draw the line, any line, you have effectively neutralised your own voice.

If you really care about gun rights, you should come away from the extremist position, and figure out a way, philosophically, to draw a line. If the Constitution says that George Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Archdiocese of New York, being rich, get to have their own nukes, then we're changing the Constitution pronto.

It doesn't say that, though. The Second Amendment contains a line-drawing clause: well- regulated. If you stay on the reservation of sanity, you get to have a hand in drawing that line.

If you cannot draw any line, and you argue that Soros gets a nuke, and Dahmer could have his very own mustard gas arsenal, then you've grievously weakened your own ability to protect the Second Amendment, because 97% of the people can see that's insane.

Can you not simply answer the question? Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.

You're engaging in a line-drawing exercise, which is good, because it at least makes it clear that you are on the reservation of the sane.

You're doing yourself and your cause (protecting individual ownership of firearms) no favors by attacking and insulting me. I'm a natural ally. But if you cannot draw a line, a clear one, if you cannot say "No, there is no personal right to those weapons", and you have to act as though your interlocutor, me, a military veteran myself, is an idiot, a numbnuts, every other sort of thing, then you should understand that you are undercutting yourself politically.

Your argument is that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to firearms. Ok. They say that positively and affirmatively. "Individual weapons" in an age of miniaturisation, doesn't get you there. There are individually deployed chemical and biological weapons.

You have to be be able to say that NBC weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. You should be able to say that easily, as easily as the insults roll off your tongue.

But you don't, at least not yet. And because you don't, you weaken your side.

Of course, if the government has the NBC and individuals don't that means the government is stronger. If the British government had had nukes in 1776 we would not be independent.

But if individuals could buy and own chemical, biological and nuclear weapons easily and freely, we wouldn't be alive either.

The nature of modern weaponry is such that the government is always going to have the upper hand nowadays. That does not mean that we should take guns away from individuals.

Can you not simply answer the question? Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.

If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes.

The constitution's words should be taken literally.

The constitution isn't like the Bible which is error free.

If the Constitution says that George Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Archdiocese of New York, being rich, get to have their own nukes, then we're changing the Constitution pronto.

You must realize that laws don't prevent things from happening. In spite of the WOD millions misuse and even OD from "illegal" drugs. In spite of tough NYC/Chicago etc gun laws, police and other scum still do bad stuff with guns.

Outlaws like Israel have nukes. You can pretend that laws will stop Joe Sixpack & The Knights Templar from having neighborhood nukes to protect themselves from the ghey Argentinian Pope & The Archdiocese of New York, but they'll do what they believe is best for liberty & security, regardless.

People are going to do whatever it takes to ensure "the security of a free state".

It's human nature for people are going to protect themselves and their families, from authoritarian goons whether government or private.

You must realize that laws don't prevent things from happening.

No, but they make it legal to stop things from happening.

The government can, and does, stop people from acquiring NBC weapons, bombs, grenades, Stinger missiles, bomb components and unlicensed machine guns.

The government does not stop people from going to church, joining a political party, complaining about corruption.

See the difference? Where things are legal, the government doesn't try to interdict. Where things are illegal, the government intervenes quite aggressively to enforce the law.

To me, the only open question on that list is machine guns. Everything else on that list is too dangerous for crackpot individuals to have, and of course the government can intervene to prevent people from getting them. The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact.

For me, machine guns are the question, the thing on the frontier. Long ago the government decided to regulate them to a small, traceable and traced number. That makes sense to me.

I don't want to see the prohibition of semi-automatic weapons, I like concealed carry and open carry, and I want easy licensing to do so (concealed carry). I want uniform, lax national standards, so that people don't face arrest crossing state borders: the 2nd Amendment is a national right, it should be consistent across all states.

In my opinion, machine guns are on the cusp of WMD, and should be severely restricted and regulated (as they are). Regulating them as we have for the last century seems sufficient to me: we have not had anybody cut loose with an M-16 in a shopping mall, so I don't see a need to make the law of machine guns any stricter. Don't see a need to make them any laxer either, though.

I about the best sort of ally that the gun nuts are ever going to get. A pretty liberal guy on matters of poverty relief, who is tolerant of things that conservatives consider immoral, who doesn't like excessive taxation, who likes the military but who is much more suspicious of the paramilitary. Who will vote for Republicans, and who agrees that the Second Amendment protects a private right to own GUNS, right up through semi-automatic weapons (even if they look SCARY, like "assault rifles" that are, in fact, just semi-automatic rifled gussied up by Mattel to LOOK LIKE bad-ass commando machine guns (and sold to men who are compensating for something). Compensate away, I'll defend your guns rights...

IF you will meet me on the plane of sanity and agree that we're talking about GUNS. Just GUNS. Not anti-air missiles, not WMD, not germs, chemicals, bombs, nukes, land mines.

We can debate machine guns - that's the line where the debate should be.

Nobody in his right mind can seriously think we can let people have Sarin gas and anthrax grenades, or dirty-bomb grade uranium. The Second Amendment must not be interpreted to mean that.

If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. The constitution's words should be taken literally.

Let me be sure I understand you. You think that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that people have the right to possess their own personal nukes.

Do you really think that?

Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.

If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes.

No, the Constitution does not say that, even if read literally. Saying the right may not be infringed does not define the right protected from infringement.

For all their prior lives before independence from England, the colonists enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) which existed under the English common law.

The Founders and Framers knew the meaning of "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" all of their lives. The Constitution was crafted with the language of the English common law.

The prevailing interpretation of the Constitution is what the words meant to the common people at the time. It is not the drafters but the ratifiers who turned the words on a page into the law of the land. The appearance of the common law legal term, "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," could only convey the same meaning as that term conveyed under English common law, unless stated otherwise. The Framers saw no need to distinguish "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," in the Constitution, from "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the common law. They simply used a term everybody knew and understood.

The common law right did not protect the unrestricted possession of all weapons of war. The right itself may not be infringed, but the right itself never conveyed some right to possess anything other than weapons that were lawful to possess, under due restrictions.

Machineguns and atom bombs are not generally lawful to possess, and are not protected by the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As such weapons are not encompassed by the 2nd Amendment right, infringing upon one's ability to possess such weapons does not violate the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Outlaws like Israel have nukes.

Israel is a nation filled with people of above average intelligence. That differs greatly from a group of slobbering libertarians muttering about muh nukes.

Outlaws like Israel have nukes. You can pretend that laws will stop Joe Sixpack & The Knights Templar from having neighborhood nukes to protect themselves from the ghey Argentinian Pope & The Archdiocese of New York, but they'll do what they believe is best for liberty & security, regardless.

People are going to do whatever it takes to ensure "the security of a free state".

The great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump is tearing down the house that Obama built. He is making America safe again.

November 6 is coming. More U.S. Supreme Court Justices like the eminent jurist, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will get appointed by the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump.

Nobody gives a crap what some cranky old asshat blogger has to say.

Nobody with any imagination that doesn't get wood at the thought of following orders,anyway.

Sound like anyone you know?

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Syllabus

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

If you are going to keep quoting that brain fart known as Heller,why not go ahead and quote Santa and the Easter Bunny,too?

Reading the laws would show you just how ignorant of the law you are. When machineguns were first issued to U.S. troops is irrelevant. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.

You just LOVE following orders,don't you?

Suitcase nukes can be individual weapons. So can small chemical and biological weapons. And stinger missiles.

BullBush! Granted,suitcase nukes CAN be carried by one man. I even knew a few people in the army that were trained and designated to jump into Easter Europe carrying suitcase nukes if the Russians ever invaded,but since it is impossible for private individuals to create one and the government isn't going to sell them,where would they come from?

In addition,there is that part about "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier". Common soldiers don't carry suitcase nukes,or bio or chemical weapons around.

In addition,there is that part about "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier".

"A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier" part really is "in addition". When was it added?

Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.

Just so that we're clear, you do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be law?

It is just typical libertarian nonsense.

Yeah,deys jist too much of that "liberty nonsense" going around,huh?

What people REALLY need is a firm dictator that can be a strict father figure,right?

Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.

No. Nor does it forbid it.

Irrelevant because none are individual weapons carried by the typical soldier.

That "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier" part really is "in addition". When was it added?

It was a major part of the discussion that lead to the adoption of the Second Amendment.

Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.

Once again you are putting your ignorance of the law on display.

Just so that we're clear, you do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be law?

Not when they violate the original intent of the US Constitution.

Once again you are putting your ignorance of the law on display.

That would be you doing that,Bubba. "The Law" is a flexible thing,able to be changed by any fool or group of fools in power at any given time.

Changing the US Constitution is a little more involved. It takes decades of robots like you working diligently in the background to change it,and even then it's not a sure thing you would get away with it.

"The People" are the ultimate rulers of this land,not as bunch of punk ass whore lawyers.

What people REALLY need is a firm dictator that can be a strict father figure,right?

Article III

Section 1.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Your current judicial daddy is Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Constitution vested the judicial power in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may establish. I can't find the secret codicil where the Constitution vested such judicial power in a cranky old blogger named sneakypete.