Should America ban AUTOMATIC rifles?

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Blue Skies wrote:

TaxGuy wrote:

But being able to build a militia is EXACTLY the reason for the Second Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees our right to freedom of speech, particularly the ability to speak against our own government. The Second Amendment guards the First Amendment from a leader trying to limit your First Amendment rights. The founding fathers were afraid there would come a day when a ruler would try to change or bend the rules. So they made sure we had a way to fight.

how are automatic weapons going to defeat tanks and fighter jets?

Yeah, slight flaw in the Second Amendment. They didn’t see the day coming where we couldn’t fight our own army.

And you’re right, you probably can’t win against a tank or fighter jets, but at least you have the hope of getting close enough to leader to put a bullet in their head and kill the head of the snake.

And just to be clear, I’m not advocating for automatic weapons. I was just responding as to why we have a Second Amendment.

Order the good wine

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Kolaxis wrote:

It’s a step-by-step process. Numerous examples of how this works have already played out in Europe.

YEAH lets ask the Catalonians how being disarmed has worked out for them.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22529]

Nope.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[Anonymous 7]

PistolPete wrote:

There is a better solution to the Vegas attack. I would bet $100 that the catalyst for this event is a bitch–somewhere somehow a c~~~ is involved

http://therightscoop.com/brother-of-las-vegas-gunman-says-he-mustve-snapped-or-something/

NBC News reports that Paddock was married and going through a divorce or somehow splitting up with his wife, though it was not clear who that woman is. NBC also said it is not known if the marital issues played any role in the shooting.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

I should point out that our founders NEVER considered a scenario where the citizens would have to fight their own country’s standing army BECAUSE they opposed the notion of a standing federal army; why because they knew that sooner or later such a thing becomes an instrument of oppression.

We would be much better off today in this country if we did not have a federal standing army and this why:

a) the government without a standing army is not going to have the means to go and meddle in the affairs of others in the world.
b) In the event military force is required the President would be compelled to go to congress to get a declaration of war in order to mobilize the state militias.
c) obviously some military assets would have to be federal ie the Navy, the nuclear force. After all we don’t want ALABAMA’s militia to get p~~~ed at the libtards in CA and nuke LA. OR DO WE!

[Silver FoxParticipant 2766]

I have never once heard a compelling argument for banning civilian gun ownership while exempting military and law enforcement from the same.

Using guns, the military alone has caused the deaths of more innocents than all the mass shootings combined… times 10.

Unless you are for universal disarmament, which includes military/LE, I do not consider the gun ban arguments to be honest. You’re not anti-gun; you just don’t like it when certain categories of people have them.

What troubles me about this is the mindset that assumes the legitimacy of governments just deciding what you can or cannot have, do, or believe. MGTOW have pretty universally condemned the establishment of gynocentric laws in this nation, because they are unfair and do not represent liberty. If you want to ban certain kinds of guns, despite the objections of other people, then why can’t the feminists do the same with misandrist laws? Fair’s fair, right?

"Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." --Apostle Paul

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22529]

We had equal weaponry. Same kinds of guns. Same kinds of cannons. Same kinds of ships. Same kinds of swords. Many cannons and guns may have even been older than what the brits had.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

OK OK I forgot about the Whisky rebellion in 1791, the continental army WAS used to suppress a rebellion about taxes—OF COURSE>

[Anonymous 3]

Asking the wrong question.

It is not the guns which kill people. There are no guns for civilians in my place but I’m sure about that. If someone here wanted to kill someone, here are kitchen knives, Molotov c~~~tails, poisons, baseball bats, and other dangerous stuff useful to kill. And terrorist assholes may have a lot of black market ways to buy whatever guns or bombs they want I guess. Also, laws and licensing and stuff wont stop that. And even if the shooter had a pistol, that can shoot one-two per second let’s say, still a few deaths in quarter of a minute.

The good questions:
-Why did that person shoot?
-why the others did not shoot back or take cover?
-why was that person with rifle let to go there? Aren’t there gun free places?
-with all that surveillance big brother police state, how did authorities not notice signs of it? Or they don’t care, more funds for anti-terrorism if they let a few shootings happen?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

When the government has a monopoly on force the population is little more than serfs. The government should be afraid of us not the other way around.

[Anonymous 7]

I might be wrong here but I *think* the first gun laws were enacted to prevent black people from owning arms.

[surfdude12Participant 4103]

Blue Skies wrote:

Personally, i think the US should ban automatic ones. All other guns should be legal, as part of the constitution.

People are not allowed to carry around bombs that can kill 50+ ppl at once. So why should people be allowed to carry automatic guns that do the same?

Except bombs aren’t designed to be carried. They’re designed to be left somewhere and detonated. The constitution language “keep and bear arms” would exclude bombs on its face. Sure, someone could carry a bomb and use it while carrying it, but that’s not how bombs are designed to be used and thus would be the exception not the rule. It would be like arguing that a nuclear weapon is a weapon designed to be carried. The language “keep and bear” would then be meaningless (if all weapons could be carried/beared).

If citizens wanted to fight the government (due to corruption or some form of evil), the US military has much superior weapons than automatic rifles. There’s no chance of winning against your own military.

That undermines your argument for banning automatic rifles. The constitutional language of maintaining a “well regulated militia” arguably means that an individuals’ “right to keep and bear arms” needs to ensure that a citizen-led militia would be capable of preventing a disarming of the people by the Federal Government. Thus, according to your argument, the people should be able to own weapons equal to those of the U.S. military and thus an automatic weapons ban is unconstitutional.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Actually the first “gun” laws didn’t show up until the 1930s. Prior to that anyone who wanted to could own a Thompson sub-machine gun, a BAR whatever. And the first “violation” of a gun law to reach the Supreme Court was Miller vs US and that DIDN’T involve a machine gun it was about a sawed off shot gun.

So we went many MANY years with these weapons amongst us. Granted gangsters using these things were the reason the bans were imposed.

[Anonymous 42]

I trust myself with a fully auto more than I trust anyone else with a fully auto!

The question should be trust rights!

[surfdude12Participant 4103]

Blue Skies wrote:

how are automatic weapons going to defeat tanks and fighter jets?

So tanks and fighter jets should be legal? That’s what you’re arguing, as second amendment was purposely drafted to protect people from tyrannical government. You’re merely making the argument for more legalized weaponry, not less.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

BTW re-listening to the audio the weapon used sounds like a chain fed machine gun. I used to be an M60 gunner and it sounds a like that.

Small arms on full auto have more the sound of cloth tearing.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Individuals may not have access to heavy weapons (tanks/planes etc) but the state militias SHOULD—the federal government should NOT.

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

it sounds like the las vegas guy broke many existing gun laws so passing more wouldn’t help.

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[surfdude12Participant 4103]

SUPREME COURT: HELLER DECISION

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Looks like it will come down to this: Is an automatic rifle a weapon “in common use” in 2017?

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Heller deals with firearms NOT associated with military use, and is specifically limited to the “law” in DC. It is read very narrowly. With the current composition of the Court it is very unlikely to be friendly to folks owning automatic weapons.

The standard in Miller was Does a weapon have any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia? It must do so in order to trigger the protection of Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

Unfortunately the Second Amendment is a two part amendment and the first part was eviscerated by the civil war.

[Author]

Posts