The NRA released the following statement regarding federal regulation of bump fire stocks:

The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

Trump's fist "gun control" victory was getting the NRA/GOP to drop the Hearing Protection/Gun Silencer infringement repeal legislation, which was about to pass in the HOR. David Hogg and The Donald are now working on more 2A infringements. "Take the guns" is their creed.

David Hogg values

Trump White House Punts on Gun Silencer Bill

The legislation had progressed through the House prior to the Las Vegas shooting. But has stalled since. Leadership has no immediate plans to vote on the legislation, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said on Tuesday. “That bill is not scheduled now; I don’t know when it’s going to be scheduled,” Ryan told reporters. “Right now we’re focused on passing our budget.”

With the White House not publicly pushing the measure, the timeline for its consideration becomes less clear. President Donald Trump himself said on Tuesday, before departing to his visit to storm-ravaged Puerto Rico, that “we’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by,” without specifying a time. Trump is scheduled to visit Las Vegas on Wednesday.

The White House comms shop did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.

Sources close to the president say that it is possible that he eventually comes out against, or at least does not explicitly support, the silencer bill, as a way of demonstrating independence on the gun policy in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre. Were he to do so, it would be an explicit break from his eldest son, who has been a top ally of business interests pushing the legislation.

“I love your product,” Donald Trump Jr. said in a promotional video for SilencerCo in September 2016. “It’s just a great instrument. There’s nothing bad about it at all. It makes total sense. It’s where we should be going."

Trump Jr. added that they could even help get “little kids into the game” of hunting.

Personally, I have no interest in the bump stocks ! But I would like to see the sound suppressors deregulated !!!

So your stupid meme showing Trump saying “The sencond amendment is under attack”... is YELLA propaganda.

“Bump stocks” aren’t constitutionally protected any more than heroin is, dumb shit.

Says the NY libtard canary.

President Donald Trump promises that he is “just a few weeks” from issuing regulations that would outlaw bump fire stocks.

I honestly couldn't care less. Wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. I worship at the feet of accuracy,not mass firepower.

Like many, I am disappointed in Trumps 2nd Amend stance!

Personally, I have no interest in the bump stocks ! But I would like to see the sound suppressors deregulated !!!

I'm with ya on both,but it's several decades too late to save my hearing.

I STRONGLY suspect Trump will do the right thing on suppressors,but will wait until after the mid-term elections are over to even whisper about it.

Bump stocks” aren’t constitutionally protected any more than heroin is, dumb shit.

I bet you have one though,don't you?

I bet you have one though

Actually, I don’t. I personally feel banning them is as fruitless as installing a screen door on a submarine. But my point was valid... the problem isn’t that bump stocks are banned because they aren’t a fucking right to possess. The problem is the assholes that get indoctrinated to allow this to happen OR HAVE TO HAPPEN. Those sheep are your American PEERS.

“Bump stocks” aren’t constitutionally protected

Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

Anyways, it's always hilarious watching the rampant hypocrisy of Trump cultists on full display.

This Republican president’s promise to “write out” bump fire stocks sounds suspiciously like his Democratic predecessor’s claim to possess the power to use his phone and pen to make law.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Barack Obama proclaimed in 2014. “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions,” he added.

If Obama had taken steps to ban bump-stocks, you would have screamed bloody murder.

Trump does it and he's "Making America Great Again".

Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

A bump stock is not a firearm. Dumb shit.

lol

Actually, I don’t. I personally feel banning them is as fruitless as installing a screen door on a submarine.

I actually agree with you on that. In fact,if someone is shooting at me with an AR,I hope they are using a bump stock because the chances are much higher that I won't get hit.

I am sure there is something I hate more than an inaccurate weapon,but I am having trouble thinking of it right at this moment.

Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

It's not a firearm. It's a freaking butt stock.

Our Founding Fathers were not concerned about protecting a man’s right to keep his home and family safe from “danger.” Our Founding Fathers protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms because they knew that such was the only way to avoid being enslaved by tyrants.

They knew from their study of history that a tyrant’s first move was always to disarm the people, and generally to claim it was for their safety, and to establish a standing army so as to convince the people that they didn’t need arms to protect themselves, for the tyrant and his professional soldiers would do it for them. Sound familiar?

Consider this gem from William Blackstone, a man of immense and undeniable influence on the Founders and their understanding of rights, civil and natural.

In Volume I of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone declares “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

The English common law right of self-defense was not a right of communal defense against the dark overlords. The right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution carried forth the English common law right to keep and bear arms which was applicable to the colonists as subjects of the King of England.

The author could have quoted Blackstone directly on point, but he does not like what it says:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

The common law right to keep and bear arms applied to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions." This RKBA was carried forth by the colonies into the Constitution.

"Due restrictions" may include bump stocks.

[Deckard #10] Huh? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

What part of the defined "right" in "the right to keep and bear arms" do you not understand. The right applies only to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions." Your misunderstanding is not of "shall not be infringed" but your willful misunderstanding of the right itself, and its inherent limitations.

The right applies only to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions."

You Hogg bro canaries are clueless.

lol

The right applies only to arms "such as are allowed by law" and "under due restrictions."

A ban on bump-stocks is clearly as unconstitutional as the ban on "assault rifles".

Wanna bet Trump the gun-grabber goes after them before his term is up?

A ban on bump-stocks is clearly as unconstitutional as the ban on "assault rifles".

This is why LITTLE PEOPLE, like you, have no importance. You’re an idiot... and have no business deciding what’s constitutional and what’s not.

Your post is the dumbest shit I think I’ve ever read on ANY political forum.

Your post is the dumbest shit

How ironic coming from a former cop with a room-temperature IQ.

Eat a buffet of dicks princess.

A ban on bump-stocks is clearly as unconstitutional as the ban on "assault rifles".

Most people think that a stock is an essential part of a rifle. It's like saying that you can only have a trigger that fires once every minute.

Nanny state Infringements!

Nanny state Infringements!

Trump cultists don't care as long as it's "their boy" doing the infringing.

Commenting on Blackstone’s Commentaries, eminent Founding Era jurist and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker put a finer point on the purpose of protecting the natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. He wrote:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

Enough said.

Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Reference, to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States; And of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by St. George Tucker (Philadelphia: Published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small, Robert Carr, Printer, 1803) is a five (5) volume work. All praise to the author for avoiding any citation to the title or a volume, must less a section or page, or a link to an online copy.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1, Appendix, NOTE D, Section 12, Restraints on Powers of Congress

8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.

True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1, Appendix, NOTE C, Of the Constitution of Virginia

The imbecility of an executive, possessing no independent authority with respect to the public force, must in time of war, or danger, place it under the immediate direction of the legislature, which is thus transformed into a numerous executive council, annually elected. The incapacity of such a body to concert and conduct uniform measures, for such active operations as may be required for the defence of the state, is self-evident to every man of the least discernment. Nothing short of omniscience could prepare the members, before the time of assembling, to act according to the existing state of things; either the time must be lost in acquiring the necessary knowledge of these things, or ignorance, faction, and intrigue, will disconcert every measure that maybe proposed. A state thus governed would equally be exposed to internal convulsions, and to foreign insult or dominion. The expectation of forming an immediate and effectual federal government of the states, probably occasioned much of this inattention to the structure of the government so far as relates to its foreign concerns. The danger arising from this circumstance is strongly depicted by Mr. Jefferson. Every man must shudder with horror at the proposal which he mentions of making a dictator: had the legislature done so, the executive in all probability must have submitted without a struggle; and the opposition of the judiciary to such an authority must have been equally ineffectual. Inter arma silent leges, is a maxim which will ever be peculiarly applicable to that department, though in time of peace it may be regarded as the palladium of genuine liberty. Happily for us, many of the inconveniences which might have been apprehended in Virginia as a sovereign state, unconnected with any other, are now in a great measure remedied by the adoption of the federal constitution, by which all those objects which respect other nations or states, are consigned to the care, attention, and regulation of the federal government; whilst those which respect the domestic happiness, interest, and advancement of the state, its internal economy, peace, and good order, form an ample field for the wisdom and patriotism of the state-legislature to exert themselves, without hazarding, as we may reasonably hope, a repetition of those dangers to which a constitution formed without a precedent, and without experience to guide its framers, at first exposed us.

In the draught for a constitution of this state, prepared by Mr. Jefferson, there is an excellent delineation of the powers and duties which should be assigned to the governor, and council respectively; and with recommending it to the very attentive perusal of the student, I shall conclude my remarks on this part of the constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d16000.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 — Appendix, Note D, Section 16 - Judicial Powers.

If we consider the nature of the judicial authority, and the manner in which it operates, we shall discover that it cannot, of itself, oppress any individual; for the executive authority must lend it's aid in every instance where oppression can ensue from it's decisions: whilst on the contrary, it's decisions in favour of the citizen are carried into instantaneous effect, by delivering him from the custody and restraint of the executive officer, the moment that an acquittal is pronounced. And herein consists one of the great excellencies of our constitution: that no individual can be oppressed whilst this branch of the government remains independent, and uncorrupted; it being a necessary check upon the encroachments, or usurpations of power, by either of the other. Thus, if the legislature should pass a law dangerous to the liberties of the people, the judiciary are bound to pronounce, not only whether the party accused hath been guilty of any violation of it, but whether such a law be permitted by the constitution. If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of a man's own conscience or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not; and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act. If an individual be persecuted by the executive authority, (as if any alien, the subject of a nation with whom the United States were at that time at peace, had been imprisoned by order of the president under the authority of the alien act, 5 Cong. c. 75) it is then the province of the judiciary to decide whether there be any law that authorises the proceedings against him, and if there be none, to acquit him, not only of the present, but of all future prosecutions for the same cause: or if there be, then to examine it's validity under the constitution, as before-mentioned. The power of pardon, which is vested in the executive, in it's turn, constitutes a proper check upon the too great rigor, or abuse of power in the judiciary department. On this circumstance, however, no great stress ought to be laid; since in criminal prosecutions, the executive is in the eye of the law, always plaintiff; and where the prosecution is carried on by it's direction, the purity of the judiciary is the only security for the rights of the citizen. The judiciary, therefore, is that department of the government to whom the protection of the rights of the individual is by the constitution especially confided, interposing it's shield between him and the sword of usurped authority, the darts of oppression, and the shafts of faction and violence.

In interpreting the U.S. Constitution, one may not ignore the English common law that was brought over to the colonies and "remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states."

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm

Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 — Appendix, Note E, Of The Unwritten, or Common Law of England and Its Introduction Into, and Authority Within the United American States

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.

Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

If, for example, a law be passed by congress, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates, or persuasions of a man's own conscience or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms; it would, in any of these cases, be the province of the judiciary to pronounce whether any such act were constitutional, or not; and if not, to acquit the accused from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such unconstitutional act.

This is where they summon from the ether that the Court only issues opinions that are not binding and may be ignored.

open carry on the Kent State campus

Not on her watch, Donnell and David Hogg's goons don't stand a chance at the new and improved Kent State.

Gun girl has put the fear of God into the Trump/Hogg gun grabbers

Hondope and partner prom pic on twitter. How sweet.

https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky/status/988454056615202817

Cameron Kasky
@cameron_kasky

Prom 2018
9:26 AM - 23 Apr 2018

It looks like your inner yukon snuck out of the closet again.

Not on her watch, Donnell and David Hogg's goons don't stand a chance at the new and improved Kent State.

She is not a student or faculty at Kent State. She can lawfully open carry on campus per Ohio law. She is a visitor and does not fall under the Board of Trustees' policy statement: "The policy provides a declaration by the Board that deadly weapons are prohibited on all university grounds, unless otherwise permitted by Ohio law."

Trump cultists don't care as long as it's "their boy" doing the infringing.

Beautiful plumage the poodle's tailors wove him ehh?

" it's several decades too late to save my hearing. "

I am with you on that. I use to laugh at people that used ear plugs shooting 22's. No more. I do the same now. Abused myself too much when I was younger !!

Now I wear them even when using 22's. Hearing is bad now, just do not want it to deteriorate further.

Wife says if I get any worse, she will have to get one of those battery bull horns. I said " Huh " LOL !!!

- - - - - - - - - -

The Great, the Magnificient President Donald J. Trump

Dan Rather (3rd from left) hosts a SiriusXM Roundtable Special Event with Parkland, Florida, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Students and activists (L-R) Alex Wind, Emma Gonzalez, David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Jaclyn Corin at SiriusXM Studio on March 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s

That's incorrect, there are many firing full auto at Knob Creek and elsewhere.

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

Canadian Senator goes full auto, legally....

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. 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.

I do mind if they are able to arm them with bombs.

You hate us because we're free. Trump will sell anything to the Saudi's, but US citizens have infringements.

Well ya, Joe Sixpack doesn't have $110 Billion to spend on arms. Not Saudi Prince's, so we're screwed.

I think that the gun laws should be set to keep machine guns out of private hands. Machine guns and missile launchers, bombs, nukes, anti-aircraft weapons, etc.

Private people having THOSE weapons in their hands doesn't make ANY of us free - it holds us all hostage to nutjobs who cook off all the time. We SEE nutjobs cook off right HERE on THIS small website all the time.

Drawing the line THERE, at machine guns, makes sense to me. I don't believe that it's a matter of cutting off your freedom to say you can't have machine guns, land mines, Hawk missile batteries, Stinger missiles, Claymore mines and a nuke in your basement. Jesus Christ, man, you people sound like lunatics when you suggest that ANY sort of rational restriction on gun ownership renders you unfree. It's nuts.

Semiautomatic weapons? Sure - I think we should be able to have those. Also handguns - I think we should be able to carry those in most places. I don't think we should have to register every gun or license everybody. Broad guns rights are great.

But unlimited open-ended possession of any sort of weapons? Nukes in your basement? No. Machine guns? No. No, our society will not be FREE, in any meaningful sense, when nutjobs can cook off and hose down 100, 200, 100,000 people at a shot before they can be stopped.

Common sense has got to prevail. You put yourself out of the pale of even getting to sit at the table when you bleed out the eyes at ANY sort of restriction on weapons. That hasn't ever really been our law. It's not our law now. It's not going to BE our law.

Now, if you and your ilk are rational and admit that, yeah, weapons of mass destruction are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, then people will accept you at the table. But if you take an absolutist hard line, then your guns rights ends up being lost because you're not even in the room, the only people left standing up for gun rights are people like me. And I understand why machine guns are where the line has to be drawn.

Engage rationally on the question, don't go crying that you're being enslaved because you aren't allowed to have your own person nuke. COME ON, man.

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.

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

As you are demonstrably an old fool, show me how you, on your own, change the law.

You can blog any damfool thing you want and it changes nothing.

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

The truly ignorant people, such as yourself, who proclaim that their cranky stupid demented ideas displace the constitutional interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court, barely rule the wild imaginations of their own delusional mind.

When the Court ruled that abortion was a right, that became the law in all 50 states.

When the Court ruled that same sex marriage was lawful, that became the law in all 50 states.

When and if the Court decides to rule differently, whatever they rule will be the law.

This is true, your absurd bleatings to the contrary notwithstanding.

When your absurdities meet reality, reality prevails.

I myself think that the best read of the Second Amendment is that it applies to personal firearms - not the other stuff (WMD, crew-served weapons, Claymore mines, napalm, et al).

Our point of political contention, then, is limited to machine guns. From my perspective, it's settled law (by Supreme Court decision). From yours, the Supreme Court overreached and had no authority to make such an opinion.

That fight I will leave between you and Nolu Chan, because from my perspective, the law as to where the line is drawn - machine guns - is right, but on this side of the line: handguns, semi-automatic weapons, carrying rights and the general harassment of gun owners by the government, the government is in the wrong and this right is heavily infringed by the authorities.

I'm ready and willing to roll back regulations and restrictions and limitations on handgun ownership and carrying, and "assault rifle" legislation which is based on semi-automatic weapons being "scary-looking". The Second Amendment, I believe, is much, much stronger and more protective than that.

Also, I think it is a national right that overrides all competing states rights. I do not believe that the states have the authority under the 9th or 10th amendments to infringe upon the First or Second, and that all claims of states rights against the First and Second by right out to be swept aside in favor of broad national free speech, free religion and guns rights.

In that context, I am a very good ally indeed, ready and willing to trot out the Constitution, logic, everything, to defend gun rights that I don't choose to exercise much, because I believe in the principle and understand the logic, and believe in the wisdom of the law, and also simply don't like to see the erosion of liberties I HAVE that I don't choose to much exercise, but could.

But I'm not going to go onto the battlefield to fight for the principles that Hondo has espoused, of some sort of absolute right to possess any sort of weapons. There are far, far too many crazy average citizens. I can trust my fellow citizens with guns even if some of them are crazy. But a nuke in their basement? (George Soros is rich enough to buy nukes. So is the Teachers Union. So is Monsanto.)

Machine guns do enough damage that I draw the line below the them. So if THAT'S the ground on which the fight has to be fought, then I'm sorry, I will not fight for the principle that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear machine guns. I do not believe that is prudent.

So for our purposes, I think it would be best not to continue down the Second Amendment road. I walk a lot farther down that road with you than you know, and am a lot more passionate about defending the right - within what I believe are its prudent boundaries - than most East Coast right wing people I know.

But I can't get to machine guns. I think that limit is right, and I think the Supreme Court decided wisely, and has the authority to draw that line.

So if that's what you and I focus on, we will destroy what otherwise would be a good alliance, over an irreconcilable difference in philosophical world view.

It isn't necessary, so I'm going to let it be. We both know that the Second Amendment doesn't protect any "right" of citizens to have nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, crew-served weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, bombs and the like.

We both agree that the people have the right to keep and carry pistols, shotguns and rifles, through semiauto.

I might be more absolutist than you: I think once a criminal does his time, he retains the right to keep and bear arms - just as he has the right to free speech and freedom of religion. Parolees are still doing time, but once the sentence is complete, I see no constitutional authority to permanently deprive a man of his right to free speech, free religion, guns or voting. You may not even go as far as I do in that - I don't see that the OPTION to deprive a man of his vote or his gun rights.

We don't agree on machine guns. We're not going to. Now, because I don't actually EXERCISE my right to keep and bear arms much, it's abstract to me. I'm willing to fight for it, even vote on that basis, but my passion for the subject cools pretty quickly when the guys alongside of me in the trenches are calling me "numbnuts" and treating me with disrespect because I don't agree with them on a certain precept.

We're not going to agree on machine guns. So that we remain allies in the bigger fight - which is to get the government out of the business of harassing people over their gun rights - I think we should lay off fighting one another on this subject. I strongly support the Second Amendment, within the rational boundaries that I think it falls, and my Midwestern Michigan boy beliefs in what is "rational" regarding guns sees handguns and long arms as tools that everybody has the right to have and to carry around unmolested, anywhere.

That's a pretty good ally. It's as good as you're going to get anyway.

Sure, Hondo is an absolute FANATIC on the subject - HE thinks there are no rightful restrictions on nukes.

I won't stay in the trenches with him. He can only hurt your cause, and I don't believe in his.

So I will leave the argument over machine guns to you and Nolu Chan. I think he's right on the law, and I like that outcome better, but I'd prefer not to divide the defenders of the Second Amendment on the issue. So I'm going to let it be with you on machine guns. That is, as far as I can tell, our only meaningful point of contention (though maybe you don't think that felons should still have the vote and guns rights, like I do - we don't have to fight over that either).

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

It relevant because there are rich people and organizations that can afford to acquire WMD. If they have the constitutional right to, some will. And that's bad.

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

As decided by whom? It clear to me that the original intent of the Constitution was to fully uphold the "right" of slaveholders to hold black slaves, and the implicit power of the states to discriminate against blacks and Indians based upon their race. I do not respect the original intent of the Founders on this matter - I do not believe any such right ever existed or CAN exist - and do not want to see the courts treating their evil ideas as authoritative either.

In a similar vein, they believed that the states had the right to establish official religion, and to continue to impose religious taxes and worship attendance, within the states, as some did at the time of independence. Their original intent in the First Amendment was to prevent the FEDERAL government from doing that, but to leave it to the states. I oppose the Founders' original intent on the matter. I do not believe that the states have any right to establish a religion, tax people to uphold it, and impose fines for non- attendance. The current Supreme Court agrees with me on this.

The Founders passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, making opposition to the President and his policies seditious speech. Their original intent regarding free speech was obviously altogether less thoroughgoing than ours today. I agree with us, and really don't care what sort of limitations were still hanging in their minds from their very British, class-based societies.

Original intent is not hard to discern. And it has resulted in a series of really bad things we've had to address as a nation (because the Founders' intent was pretty bad, morally, on certain things). So, while I agree that we can certainly examine and consider their original intent, I do not believe that what they emotionally intended or wanted is binding law on us, or should be. It's persuasive authority - dictum - nothing more (nothing less).

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.

Yet you have no trouble thinking a small cabal of political creatures and vest that sort of power in the hands of a blackmailed homosexual.

You really should consider changing your screen name to Shelton Cooper.

As you are demonstrably an old fool, show me how you, on your own, change the law.

What kind of fool are you? Show me where your lust bunnies have the authority to change the US Constitution,which is the law of the land.

Santa and the Easter Bunny,too

Is that where you got that crew served arms can be infringed?

My copy of the 2A just says "arms". BTW, "people" is plural as in more than one.

Show me where your lust bunnies have the authority to change the US Constitution,which is the law of the land.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution or law, it interprets it.

The authority is at Article III.

Where is the authority of blogger sneakypete to act as the Deemer™, and to deem laws or Supreme Court interpretations unconstitutional and of no lawful effect.

Mule headed moron.

Blah,blah,blah.More anal rantings from a human machine.

That's what happens when your jackass absurdities meet reality and you have no answer.

Pathetic. Try again.

As you are demonstrably an old fool, show me how you, on your own, change the law.

You can blog any damfool thing you want and it changes nothing.

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

The truly ignorant people, such as yourself, who proclaim that their cranky stupid demented ideas displace the constitutional interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court, barely rule the wild imaginations of their own delusional mind.

When the Court ruled that abortion was a right, that became the law in all 50 states.

When the Court ruled that same sex marriage was lawful, that became the law in all 50 states.

When and if the Court decides to rule differently, whatever they rule will be the law.

This is true, your absurd bleatings to the contrary notwithstanding.

When your absurdities meet reality, reality prevails.

Our point of political contention, then, is limited to machine guns. From my perspective, it's settled law (by Supreme Court decision). From yours, the Supreme Court overreached and had no authority to make such an opinion.

First of all,we need to define WHAT machine guns are protected for individual ownership under the 2nd Amendment,and which are not.

Individual weapons of the type carried by the typical infantryman ARE protected because they are carried by individual soldiers.

Belt-fed are not covered by the 2nd Amendment because they are crew-served weapons. Even stuff like the old VN-era M-60 were CREW SERVED,even though the weapon itself was carried by one man. He had an assistant gunner,and he had ammo carriers.

I hate this argument even though I have to make it because I,personally,have no interest in machine guns,or any interest in owning one unless it was a historic weapon like a BAR or a M3 greasegun. For one thing,I couldn't afford to shoot it if you gave it to me,so what good is it to me? For another,I am one of those who subscribe to the "1 shot,1 kill" theory. What makes me do my little "happy dance" is 3 shots touching in the bullseye at 100 yards.

Besides,if I have to carry the ammo,I damn sure don't want to waste it.

Now, because I don't actually EXERCISE my right to keep and bear arms much, it's abstract to me.

Machine guns are also abstract to me. I could have one if I wanted because the local sheriff told me all I have to do is apply and he will approve it. I guess I COULD afford to own one and occasionally shoot it if it were that important to me,but it isn't. I would rather use my bolt-action rifle to make ragged holes in targets off in the distance,and spend the rest of my money on antique autos and motorcycles. Truth to tell,I haven't even shot any of my bolt guns in a decade or more. I just kinda got bored with it. The only time I shoot any of my handguns or shotguns anymore is to shoot a snake or a rabid animal. My normal daily "carry gun" is a 22 LR revolver. I have larger caliber handguns and semi-autos,but the 22 will do what I need it to do,and is quieter,cheaper to shoot,and lighter to carry.

But I'm not going to go onto the battlefield to fight for the principles that Hondo has espoused,...

Yeah,he is a nutcase. Not that it makes any difference because nukes are crew-served weapons,and the FF'ers clearly wrote that crew-served weapons were to be kept in possession of local civil authorities,to be issued in times of emergencies when the militia gets called out.

Even then,for the life of me,I can not think of even one set of circumstances where a militia under the control of a local city/county government would ever need nukes

So if that's what you and I focus on, we will destroy what otherwise would be a good alliance, over an irreconcilable difference in philosophical world view.

Not from MY POV. This really is a circular argument for pro-gunners to argue over because it's theoretical and will remain that way unless the nation goes into revolt,and if that ever happens,the law is whatever you want it to be until the dust settles.

I do have friends that own machine guns,including one guy that owns a 50 cal belt fed. He can even afford to shoot it a few times once a year if he saves his money. The fool actually spent part of his inheritance to buy it.

I guess being a teenage weapons man in the army spoiled them for me. I don't see anything mystical or magical about them. I see them and think of all the work it takes to move them around,set them up ,and keep them fed and watered. GREAT things if you are keeping the hordes of Red China from coming up your hill to eat you,but pretty much useless for anything else.

I also don't see it as a big issue because damn few people have any interest in owning one. I literally know hundreds of people who own shotguns,handguns,and rifles,and less than a dozen that own machine guns. In other words,it really is a non-issue. Most people,even people with big bucks,just don't want one.

We don't agree on machine guns. We're not going to. Now, because I don't actually EXERCISE my right to keep and bear arms much, it's abstract to me. I'm willing to fight for it, even vote on that basis, but my passion for the subject cools pretty quickly when the guys alongside of me in the trenches are calling me "numbnuts" and treating me with disrespect because I don't agree with them on a certain precept.

My remark had NOTHING to do with machine guns,and everything to do with you or anyone else that thinks some asshat judge can rule them illegal from his lofty perch as a public servant. The ONLY way to make them illegal is to change the US Constitution.

BTW,machineguns aren't even illegal to own in Massachusetts. The Kennedy Klan has boocoo bodyguards carrying them around,even in Washington,DC. Remember the incident several years ago when one of Fat Teddy's bodyguards set off a metal detector when following Fat Teddy into the Senate chambers using a peon entrance instead of one for the nobility? The DC police ended up apologizing and giving the bodyguard his Uzi back.

They get away with this by forming a corporation,and then having the corporation buy and own the weapons.

Sure, Hondo is an absolute FANATIC on the subject - HE thinks there are no rightful restrictions on nukes.

Hondo is a anarchist,not a libertarian. Most people outgrow that by the time they turn 13 or 14,but not everybody.

So I will leave the argument over machine guns to you and Nolu Chan. I think he's right on the law,...

What good is it to be right on "the law" when "the law" is wrong? Brain farts like Heller are the result of a brain fart by a leftist judge being allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights because they conflict with his personal POV. It will remain "the law" right up to the moment someone takes over and decides it is no longer "the law" because it is clearly un-Constituional.

Despite what anal people who love to wear red and march in a straight line like Nolu think,the Bill of Rights are not open to change unless you want to dissolve America because without them there would have never been an America,

It relevant because there are rich people and organizations that can afford to acquire WMD. If they have the constitutional right to, some will. And that's bad.

See my post about the Kennedy Klan. EVERY rich family in America has machine guns,and most form a family corporation,and have the corporation buy and possess them. That way you can legally own one even in places like San Francisco,DC,or Boston.

Corporations may be artificial people,but they have rights that real people don't have in some places. That IS the power of money.

It clear to me that the original intent of the Constitution was to fully uphold the "right" of slaveholders to hold black slaves, and the implicit power of the states to discriminate against blacks and Indians based upon their race.

That is not clear to me. Granted,that happened a lot and no one seemed to have any problem with it,but that doesn't mean it was Constitutional. The Preamble makes that pretty clear when it "talks" about "all people being created equal,with inalienable rights........."

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution or law, it interprets it.

There ya go,and they interpret it according to their own prejudices.

Mule headed moron.

Better than than a Anal slave boy suckup with no opinion of his own.

I am primarily concerned with the ability of people to carry concealed pistols unmolested. THAT, as a practical matter, is the most important gun right, and it is HEAVILY suppressed. THAT Is where I will fight.

It is pretty damned hard to fight about side arms when your allies won't draw a logical line at thermonuclear weapons!

A line has to be drawn for every single right. ANY right without limitations is the loose thread by which the entirety of civilisation can, and will, be unravelled. There have to be lines and limits on all things - speech (no, you can't freely give away national secrets or engage in fraud), the press (no, you can't print and sell child porn), religion (no, you can't practice human sacrifice), privacy (no, you can't have an absolutely inviolable private fortress in which you can keep slaves unmolested), and arms (no, you can't have a nuke or a nerve gas grenade or weaponised anthrax).

I want those lines drawn on big perimeters, and I want broad, broad rights. I like liberty. But the philosophical understanding the EVERY RIGHT has its limits, and the willingness to face that squarely and clearly - that's important to me. Focusing on the private concealed carry of pistols, across state and city lines, without molestation - this is fundamental. Nukes, and machine guns, are not. But if we have to be Hondos and have to be purists and refuse to EVER draw a line, then the public dismisses us as nutjobs (because then we ARE nutjobs), and then we not only don't have nukes, we don't have pistols either, and we're harassed, and in trying to hold onto EVERYTHING - even the unreasonable and insane - we lose everything. To defend all is to defend nothing. I know that. You know it too.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of every adult citisen, everywhere, except in prison and certain other obvious places (like inmates of lunatic asylums) to keep and bear pistols and long arms, including semi-automatic weapons.

That's where the fight should be - nukes and mustard gas must be conceded at the outright. I concede machine guns also.

The "Well regulated" part, I believe, DOES allow for the state to require training, and registration of some sort, but I think the right to carry is much broader, and I think the right to a license should be akin to a driver's license: you don't let drunks drive, but you can't stop everybody else.

That's a lot freer and more sensible, and more in keeping with the 2nd Amendment's language, than what we've got, or where the Hondos would take us.

The Preamble makes that pretty clear when it "talks" about "all people being created equal,with inalienable rights........."

That's the Declaration of Independence you're thinking of. That 1776 document reads, in part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights - that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (or something close to that - that's from memory).

But the Preamble to the Constitution (1787) only says: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" (or something close to that - that's from memory too)

The toad Announces He’s a Few Weeks From Banning Bump Stocks

The Toad is a degenerate, habitual liar, ass-clown, tax-cheat, and delusional narcissist.

Why would any rational individual believe anything this national embarrassment, says?

Perhaps it is only the willfully irrational, and willfully ignorant who continue to buy into this disgusting racist's propaganda....

The world is watching, and laughing at U.S.

lol

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution or law, it interprets it.

There ya go,and they interpret it according to their own prejudices.

You just blow it out your ass.

The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to act as the highest authority of the federal judicial branch.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

As a matter of law, nobody gives two shits what your interpretation of the Constitution is.

If you decided same sex marriage was unlawful, it would not stop legally authorized same sex marriage. If, prior to Obergefell, you decided that same sex marriage was constitutional, it would not have made same sex marriage lawful where a state prohibited it.

If you decided abortion was unconstitutional infanticide, abortion would still be lawful. If before Roe, you decided that abortion was a constitutional right, it would not have made abortion legal where the state prohibited it.

Where your idiotic interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is directly contrary to U.S. Supreme Court precedent, your idiotic interpretation changes nothing. It is just bullshit on parade.

The U.S. RKBA was derived directly from the English common law RKBA.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

As stated in 1802 and quoted in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844, "The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law."

Heller, 524 U.S. 570, 627-28 (2008)

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); ...

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.

You do not like what the law actually is. I do not care about what you do not like. You phony position is exposed when you choose not to exercise your bullshit right to own a modern machinegun as you know it would result in going to prison.

You cannot excercise a right that does not exist, and discretion being the better part of valor, you do not do what your bullshit asserts to be your constitutional right.

Your love of being pimped out by judges just becomes more obvious with every post you make.

Your fear of a judge sentencing you to sharing a cell with Bubba precludes your practicing the bullshit you make believe blog about.

You know what the law is. You just don't like it and act out on the internet. Your acting out does not change the law. You are not going to obtain or assemble a nice shiny new M-16 and flaunt it.

What a pathetic joke.

That's the Declaration of Independence you're thinking of. ... But the Preamble to the Constitution (1787) only says....

But neither the DOI nor the Preamble is a source of substantive law. The preamble was a product of the Committee on Style, and was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the convention before being added to the final draft of the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Drafting

The Preamble was placed in the Constitution during the last days of the Constitutional Convention by the Committee on Style, which wrote its final draft, with Gouverneur Morris leading the effort. It was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the convention beforehand. The initial wording of the preamble did not refer to the people of the United States, rather, it referred to people of the various states, which was the norm. In earlier documents, including the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France, the Articles of Confederation, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American independence, the word "people" was not used, and the phrase the United States was followed immediately by a listing of the states, from north to south. The change was made out of necessity, as the Constitution provided that whenever the popularly elected ratifying conventions of nine states gave their approval, it would go into effect for those nine, irrespective of whether any of the remaining states ratified.

Meaning and application

The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication, except as regards frivolous litigation.

Madison annotated his copy of the Report of Committee of Style with,

As Reported by Come. of revision, of Stile & arrangement. Sept. 12. consisting of Mr Johnson Mr Hamilton Mr. Morris, Mr. Madison & Mr King.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1797, (Farrand's Records), Edited by Max Farrand, Professor of History in Yale University, Volume II, page 590.

It was an introductory paragraph added by the Committee of Style, and not proposed and discussed on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, as were the actual Articles of the Constitution.

The Preamble is not a source of substantive law

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/case.html

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.

But neither the DOI nor the Preamble is a source of substantive law.

Until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, which of course they could. The current court won't. Some future court might.

Words do indeed have meaning. Part of meaning is hierarchy of authority. When words conflict and lead to different ends, what prevails?

That’s what i focus on. The pretense that they don’t conflict is fantasy.

You need a dictionary.

The constitution as written includes a right to bear arms that Congress has no lawful power to limit.

myself think that the best read of the Second Amendment is that it applies to personal firearms - not the other stuff (WMD, crew-served weapons, Claymore mines, napalm, et al).

If you lie to yourself and pretend arms aren't arms. It days nothing about personal firearms. It says arms. Get out the dictionary.

No wonder you get the Bible wrong. You try to make unchangeable words fit what you think is rigjt.

A line has to be drawn for every single right.

Seems to me the line is already drawn. By DEFINITION,a handgun is an individual weapon,and a nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.

You are not going to obtain or assemble a nice shiny new M-16 and flaunt it.

No,I am not,but only because I don't want one.

I could if I wanted,though.

Legally.

myself think that the best read of the Second Amendment is that it applies to personal firearms - not the other stuff (WMD, crew-served weapons, Claymore mines, napalm, et al).

If you lie to yourself and pretend arms aren't arms. It days nothing about personal firearms. It says arms. Get out the dictionary.

Yes,but the definition of "arms" FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DECLARATION were already settled during the discussion that lead to the adoption,namely "arms of a type carried by individual soldiers". Meaning handguns,rifles,and shotguns. Such things are cannons and grenades are NOT included because cannons are crew-served weapons,and grenades are not firearms.

I have no idea why so many of us get sidetracked over the discussion of machine guns. Almost nobody really wants one bad enough to spend the kind of money it takes to buy one,and for civilian use such as hunting,target shooting,or self-defense,they are useless.

Don't forget,there are a lot of people in this country who have no desire to own ANY firearm,never mind a machine gun. We let crap discussions like this divert us from the real fight of keeping ownership and possession of actual useful firearms legal.

The Constitution says a well regulated militia. Therefore,arms are regulated. The only question is how much.

Absolutely not. This is simply a misinterpretation of a now archaic usage of the term well regulated.

The meaning of "well regulated" militia did not refer to gun control regulations. Now archaic, the meaning two centuries ago, in context, meant a militia well trained to use arms. The colonists of the day were experts at arms from their everyday hunting of squirrels, turkeys, and raccoons, and the like.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

David E. Young, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, Golden Oak Books, Ontonagon, Michigan, 2007, pp. 63-64:

VIRGINIA'S WELL REGULATED MILITIA OF THE PEOPLE

The wording of Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which contained language relative to the Second amendment was:

SEC. 13 - That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This language was written and adopted by men who were actively engaged in armed defense against the forces of government which they viewed as violating their constitution, rights, and liberty. Note that this language used by George Mason and the Virginia Convention in the Virginia Declaration of Rights closely followed that which Mason had used previously in describing the voluntary militia association for defense in several documents relating to Fairfax County. This prior Mason usage extends back to over a year earlier, prior to any hostilities with the British. In September 1774, Mason described a voluntary militia association of gentlemen and freeholders as the Fairfax Independent Company of Volunteers. The purpose of the volunteers associating was defense of their just rights and privileges upon principles of the British Constitution. Later, in January 1775. Mason discussed a well regulated militia in a document of the Fairfax County Committee of Safety. He described a well regulated militia composed of gentlemen freeholders and other freemen as the natural strength and only stable security of a free government. Mason indicated that such a militia would make standing armies unnecessary since they were ever dangerous to liberty. Mason's Committee recommended that the inhabitants from 16 to 50 years old voluntarily form companies, choose officers, and arm and train themselves. Then in a Febmary 6, 1775 plan for embodying the people of Fairfax Country, Mason largely repeated the Committee language of January, adding the term "safe" to the description of a well regulated militia being the natural strength and only safe and stable security of a free government. He specified that a well regulated militia was intended to include all able-bodied freemen from 18 to 50 years old. Finally, in mid-April 1775, Mason provided his views on the purposes for the men voluntarily embodying themselves as a well regulated militia in Fairfax County. These purposes were to preserve the inestimable rights inherited from their ancestors and to defend against the threatened ruin of the constitution. A well regulated militia was intended to introduce the use of arms, discipline, and a martial spirit of emulation. The reason was that in case of absolute necessity, the people might be able to act in defense of their invaded liberty

David E. Young, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, Golden Oak Books, Ontonagon, Michigan, 2007, pp. 16-17.

PLAIN TRUTH

Ben Franklin, being a very well-informed person and a printer, was in an exceptionally favorable position to publicize his concerns about the defenseless situation of Pennsylvania. In an attempt to rouse his fellow Pennsylvanians to prepare for organized defense of the Colony, he wrote a pamphlet entitled Plain Truth that was publishcd on November 17. 1747. In Plain Truth. Franklin noted that all parts of Pennsylvania from the frontier areas to the Delaware shoreline were subject to attack at the whim of Britain's enemies. He noted the previous attacks along the Delaware and the probability that there were enemy spies within the Colony. It was Franklin's belief that a defensive remedy had to be prepared before the next sununer, or Philadelphia and Pennsylvania might be attacked, plundered, and destroyed. Franklin noted that if enemies ruined Philadelphia and the Colony of Pennsylvania, it would not be due to any lack of inhabitants able to bear arms in its defense. According to Franklin, there were at least 60,000 men in the Colony, not counting Quakers, who were familiar with firearms. The reasons which Franklin gave for all those men being familiar with their firearms, being able to defend themselves and the colony, and being hardy and bold was because they were all hunters and marksmen.

EXPERTISE IN THE USE OF ARMS

Considering that the able-bodied males in colonial Pennsylvania had never been required by law to possess their own arms for organized defensive purposes, as the men in the other colonies had under their militia laws, it might be assumed that there were few firearms possessed by the people of Pennsylvania. Any such assumption would be completely incorrect, however. Benjamin Franklin's Plain Truth clearly indicated that large numbers of Pennsylvanians not only possessed their own arms but were quite expert in their use. Apparently. the people of Pcnnsylvania were just as adept in the use of arms as those of Virginia described above. Militia laws were clearly not responsible for the people of Pennsylvania having and knowing how to use arms. It was the common possession and usage of arms for numerous everyday purposes such as hunting and target shooting that resulted in the population being familiar with arms and in a position to defend themselves and the Colony.

Recall Robert Beverly's 1705 book stating that Virginians spent all their lives shooting in the woods and as a result were very skillful in the use of arms. Beverly noted that with a little exercising the militia of Virginia, the free males 16 to 60, would be little inferior to regular troops. There is a very similar statement from Frothingham in Historv of the Siege of Boston. Frothingham stated that the habitual use of the fowling piece (bird hunting gun) made the farmers of Massachusetts superior to veteran troops in aiming the musket. Yet another example of this fact came from the Virginia/Pennsylania frontier. Joseph Doddridge described the normal situation on the frontier regarding a well-grown boy of twelve or thirteen. The lad was furnished a small rifle and shot pouch of his own. He then became a fort soldier and was assigned a porthole in the local defensive fort. However, it was not standing guard at a porthole during an alarm that made a young man knowledgeable in the use of his rifle. Instead, it was the everyday hunting of squirrels, turkeys, and raccoons that made him expert in the use of his gun.

But neither the DOI nor the Preamble is a source of substantive law.

Until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, which of course they could. The current court won't. Some future court might.

But until more than two centuries of legal interpretation is reversed, the DOI and the Preamble are uncitable as substantive law.

And as long as they are uncitable as substantive law, sneakypete can attribute any self-believed content to either one, and it cannot be cited as substantive law.

Whatever the DOI or Preamble may "clearly state," one must continue to look at the actual articles of the Constitution to find something substantive.

You just cut and paste,and have never had an original thought in your entire life,have you,Shelton?

You just deflect and divert when Court opinions and legal authorities establish that your delusions are bullshit, don't you Chester?

You are not going to obtain or assemble a nice shiny new M-16 and flaunt it.

No,I am not,but only because I don't want one.

I could if I wanted,though.

Legally.

Suuuuure, you could.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57557

Decorated Silver Star Veteran, POW Sentenced to 7 Years for a Gun He Bought 40 Years Ago

You can't register a shiny new M-16, and you go to prison if caught with your unregistered shiny new M-16.

There is no civilian lawful ownership of a machine gun made after 1986.

Except for you, of course. The law does not apply to you.

The supreme court granted itself power not found in the constitution. Perhaps that is for the best but an honest reading of the constitution doesn't give the supreme court the power they now have.

You may hold whatever opinion, and may even be theoretically correct, and it does not change what the law currently is. SCOTUS is the constitutionally appointed ultimate arbiter of what the law is. Pursuant to SCOTUS ruling, "separate but equal" was constitutional (Plessy) until it wasn't (Brown).

Stating what the law is does not mean agreement with it. It is only stating what the prevailing law is established to be.

SCOTUS has the final say on interpretation. Congress can change a law, or the people can amend a provision of the Constitution, and thereby override a SCOTUS interpretation.

You can't register a shiny new M-16, and you go to prison if caught with your unregistered shiny new M-16.

There is no civilian lawful ownership of a machine gun made after 1986.

Except for you, of course. The law does not apply to you.

So intelligent,but like your namesake on teebee,you don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot.

If you have the money,somebody will have a brand-new,never first,bright and shiny M-16 that is registered,but never sold.

If you have the money,somebody will have a brand-new,never first,bright and shiny M-16 that is registered,but never sold.

Yep, a brand new, 32-year old (minimum) rifle.

Definitely never first.

Yep, a brand new, 32-year old (minimum) rifle.

Definitely never first.

That just shows how little you know about firearms and the people who collect them.

[nolu chan #131] You can't register a shiny new M-16, and you go to prison if caught with your unregistered shiny new M-16.

There is no civilian lawful ownership of a machine gun made after 1986.

Except for you, of course. The law does not apply to you.

- - - - - - - - - -

[sneakypete #134] So intelligent,but like your namesake on teebee,you don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot.

If you have the money,somebody will have a brand-new,never first,bright and shiny M-16 that is registered,but never sold.

[sneakypete #136] That just shows how little you know about firearms and the people who collect them.

You bleat on endlessly about how the law is unconstitutional and you do not have to comply with it, you only have to ask your local sheriff.

Now you check the boxes to comply with every last jot and tiddle of the law, to include buying a 32+ year old gun, and you say that is buying a brand new shiny M-16. It just goes to show how full of shit you really are.

Good luck with getting aa actual, real, brand new, shiny M-16.

https://floridaarmory.com/How-to-purchase-class-III.html

How to Purchase Class III NFA Weapons in the State of Florida

Did you know that owning a suppressor (silencer), machinegun, short barreled rifle or shotgun is legal in the state of Florida? You just need to go through the proper channels. At Florida Armory Gun Shop, we handle all the details for you. Here are some basic requirements necessary to purchase & own a Class III / NFA weapon:

*You must have a clean record, with no felonies

*You must be at least 21 years of age

*You must reside in the state of Florida

*You must have a valid identification issued by the state of Florida

* In the state of Florida, you must have a Trust, Corporation or CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) Approval Signature. Ask us for more information about those options.

Class III / NFA weapons such as suppressors, machineguns, short barreled rifles or shotguns & destructive devices carry a $200 tax. AOWs carry a $5 tax. This tax is payable when we send out your Form 4 to the NFA. The NFA Branch will take anywhere from 3-5 months to process and return your application with the $200 or $5 tax stamp. Once that arrives at our store, your weapon is ready to go home with you. Just come in to the store, pass a background check and your set to go!

And, just for the heck of it,

https://www.quora.com/In-America-is-it-legal-for-a-civilian-to-own-an-M16

Tim Gordon

Answered Nov 16 2017 · Author has 2.4k answers and 2.8m answer views

In America, is it legal for a civilian to own an M16?

It’s doubtful, depending on several things.

The major one is what state you live in. Some of them do not permit firearms required to be registered and taxed under the National Firearms Act to be owned by members of the general public.

Assuming that you do live in a state that allows NFA firearms, the next consideration is the M16 itself. As in US Rifle, caliber 5.56mm, M16. Note that ‘M16’ is an official US government designation for a rifle that it purchases and issues to members of its armed forces on an as-needed basis. That means that an actual M16 is US government property. If you have an real M16, that begs the question, “where did you get it from?” I personally know of no instances where M16 rifles were sold as surplus. They didn’t even do that with M14 rifles! A number of M16 rifles have been provided to other nations as military aid, but they cannot be lawfully imported into the US, and that is assuming that the rifles in question do not still belong to the US government. Quite often, that is the case and those rifles are expected to be eventually returned. In most instances, if a civilian possesses a real M16, it is stolen property. That is, in and of itself, illegal.

The rifles described in the preceding paragraph are military models that Colt Industries internally identified using a three digit model number, starting with the Model 601, which identifies Colt produced copies of the original ArmaLite AR-15. Very few of these would have ever been sold into civilian ownership. Any receiver that is stamped as an ‘M16’ likely has an interesting story behind it…

Colt civilian AR-15 models were autoloaders and appeared with the release of the Model R6000, more commonly known as the AR-15 SP1 ‘Sporter’ in 1964. Of the 20,000 or so ostensible ‘M16’s on the National Firearms Act Registry, a large number - probably a vast majority, in fact - are actually lawful conversions of Colt civilian AR-15 (identified by a four digit number) model lower receivers that were registered before May 19, 1986 and are thus transferable. Factory select-fire rifles were available from several manufacturers between 1977 when Colt’s patent on the AR-15 expired and 1986, but ran two to three times the cost of a regular autoloader, not counting the NFA tax and headaches, and few sold. Select fire Colt AR-15’s were available, even if not listed in the catalog, but similarly costly and unless you were buying for a governmental entity, you probably had to be a very special friend of someone important at Colt or one of its distributors.

The law refers to these as ‘M16’ rifles, but they are still just select-fire AR-15’s if they were never property of the US Department of Defense.

- - - - - - - - - -

Jeff Carlisle-Tierno, Type 1 FFL dealer with a gunsmithing business

Answered Mar 29

Yes and no.

It is an M16 IF it was built to the specifications proscribed by the Department of Defense AND built under a contract to produce M16s. M16 is a military nomenclature, not one which belongs to Colt Firearms.

In order to be able to legally own a US-made full auto in the United States, it has to have been manufactured and NFA registered prior to the implementation of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. To the best of my knowledge, no M16 rifle has been released for sale on the civilian market, and I don’t really see the same DoD which prevented the M14s from being released into the NFA market allowing it.

That being said, you CAN own the exact same rifle, except it will say “AR-15” on the receiver, rather than M16. The AR-15 is a family of firearms, which includes both select fire and semi auto only variants.

So the typical NFA tax stamp holder cannot, but they can own a rifle which for all practical purposes is identical.

Now that’s not to say that an M16 can’t be in civilian hands in the US - many of those rifles were sold or given to law enforcement agencies. While a number of the terms of use indicated that they must returned to the DoD upon completion of use, that isn’t always the case. In those instances, police departments can transfer them to NFA dealers, who are civilians. They can rent them out for use on firing ranges, transfer them to other NFA dealers, or sell them to other agencies which are authorized the use of such weapons (e.g., law enforcement agencies). They cannot be sold to civilians purchasing on the NFA retail market.

I personally know of no instances where M16 rifles were sold as surplus.

Me either,but that doesn't mean it never happened.

I DO know of instances where they were just GIVEN to local police departments,though.

Who knows what is going to happen to them once the local PD's declare them as surplus?

I would be willing to bet some will get sold to local cops,and knowing cops,some will end up just getting "lost".

[Jeff Carlisle-Tierno, Type 1 FFL dealer with a gunsmithing business] I personally know of no instances where M16 rifles were sold as surplus.

Me either,but that doesn't mean it never happened.

True dat. It just means that no one seems to know of an example of it happening.

I would be willing to bet some will get sold to local cops,and knowing cops,some will end up just getting "lost".

Such a weapon may get lost, but it will not find its way into your lawful possession.

There is the fact the that if you attempt to register the unlawful weapon, the serial number will have the BATF visiting you to confiscate the weapon and charge you with unlawful possession.

[Jeff Carlisle-Tierno, Type 1 FFL dealer with a gunsmithing business] Now that’s not to say that an M16 can’t be in civilian hands in the US - many of those rifles were sold or given to law enforcement agencies. While a number of the terms of use indicated that they must returned to the DoD upon completion of use, that isn’t always the case. In those instances, police departments can transfer them to NFA dealers, who are civilians. They can rent them out for use on firing ranges, transfer them to other NFA dealers, or sell them to other agencies which are authorized the use of such weapons (e.g., law enforcement agencies). They cannot be sold to civilians purchasing on the NFA retail market.

An FFL dealer cannot lawfully sell a real brand new M-16 to you, nor can you lawfully buy one. If you manage to acquire one unlawfully, you cannot register it. You can hope nobody finds out about it, or you may join Alfred Pick.

An FFL dealer cannot lawfully sell a real brand new M-16 to you, nor can you lawfully buy one. If you manage to acquire one unlawfully, you cannot register it. You can hope nobody finds out about it, or you may join Alfred Pick.

BTW,you have a tendency to get too tied up in too many technicalities. Things like the term "M-16",for example.

When I was first assigned to the Special Warfare Center at Bragg in 1964,I was issued an Armalite AR-15. Those were the letters stramped right on the receiver. Me,you,anyone else with the money at the time could go to any gun shop in the country and buy a AR-15 right across the counter. No waiting time,no permits,nothing but cash required.

The difference was the AR-15 issued to me by the Army had a selective fire switch and full-auto was one of the selections. The AR-15 you could buy for cash in a gun shop did not have a selective fire switch. It was strictly semi-auto.

Yet both WERE Armalite AR-15's. IIRC,they had the triangular handguards,and no forward bolt assist. They also had a slower twist rate in the barrel,which caused the rounds to "tumble" and "keyhole".

BUT......,once again,they were BOTH Armalite AR-15's.

The AR-15 you could buy for cash in a gun shop did not have a selective fire switch. It was strictly semi-auto.

The one you could buy for cash in a gun shop did not, and legally could not, meet MILSPEC for an M-16.

As part of the M-16 MILSPEC, the fire control selector has three positions, safe, semi-automatic, and burst. What does not conform is not an M-16.

3.3.2.3 Fire control selector. The fire control shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic and burst and shall rotate manually without binding from one position to another when the hammer is cocked.

- - - - - - - - - -

[sneakypete #134] So intelligent,but like your namesake on teebee,you don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot. If you have the money,somebody will have a brand-new,never first,bright and shiny M-16 that is registered,but never sold.

The 2nd Amendment still gives you the right to own such weapons as are lawful to possess. The government continues to establish what weapons are lawful, or unlawful, to possess. The M-16, as well all other weapons unlawful to possess (such as a full-auto AR-15), continue to be outside the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. What the Government issues to you as a soldier on active duty has nothing to do with your 2nd Amendment civilian right to keep and bear arms.

Your unfounded claim that you have a constitutional right to own an M-16 remains unfounded. You can't lawfully buy one, you can't register one, and if caught in illegal possession of one, you can go to prison. As a technicality, you can have a cellmate named Bubba.

The AR-15 you could buy for cash in a gun shop did not have a selective fire switch. It was strictly semi-auto.

The one you could buy for cash in a gun shop did not, and legally could not, meet MILSPEC for an M-16.

Once again,getting tangled up in bullshit and overlooking actual FACTS.

THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS A M-16 AT THAT TIME,and the AR-15's issued to SF units DID have a selector switch with a full auto position. Some of the AR-15's in gun shops DID have the selector switch and were legal to own if you had the permit,and some did not have it. Yet,they were both AR-15's.

The regular Army,USMC,and US Navy were still being issued M-14's.

And I am UNSURE when selective fire weapons with M-16 engraved on them became illegal for civilian to own or possess. I DO know that prior to Clinton it was both possible and legal to own a BAR,Thompson sub-machine gun,M3 greasegun,etc,etc,etc,and every single damn one of them were ex-military weapons that had been declared as surplus to the needs of the service,and put up for sale as surplus weapons.

Since the M-16 existed LONG before Bubba was King in DC,and it has gone through many,many modifications,including modification to 3 round burst and then back to full auto or semi-auto again,chances are there are some genuine surplus M-16's floating around out there somewhere that are LEGALLY in civilian hands.

As for the legality of a licensed owner selling one to another licensed owner today goes,chances are it is illegal and will remain illegal DESPITE it being un-Constutiontal for for the government to tell anyone they can't sell private property they legally bought because the shitheads that sit on the Supreme Court will never allow the case to be put before them.

I guess,if I really wanted,I could ask a couple of Class-3 dealers about this,but the truth is I don't really care on a personal basis about M-16's and have already wasted too much time on it.

I DO care about RIGHTS,but once again,this is a mute issue unless the SC agrees to hear a case,and they won't.

Where are all the missing posts? I assume Stone is deleting them?

There are zero missing posts as I just scanned the article.

Maybe you have to click on full thread.

Interesting discussion. Where are all the missing posts? I assume Stone is deleting them?

I have no idea.

Stone?