User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:52:09 AM EDT
[#2]
Even though private individuals operated ships with privately owned cannon and local militias operated cannon? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:55:02 AM EDT
[#3]
Agreed. But here we have a different issue. We could set up the NICs program through the DOJ and allow gun dealers and other concerned parties to be able to subscribe to it for background checks on purchasers. The subscription basis would allow for privacy concerns as it would automaticly ensure accountability if done properly. This would also help indemnify dealers against lawsuites. Of course, you could always just risk it and sell it the way most private sellers do now with no real way to run a background check. Me? I'd prefer to run a check on someone I do not know. Nothing personal, but covering my ass. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:56:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Firearms up to crew served and anti-armor weapons.
The 2nd was the overthrow an oppressive Govt. - not to overthrow an entire foreign country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 10:57:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Based on what I gathered from the Federalist papers, Possesion and use of military small arms by law abiding citizens. If you break a law other than un constitutional gun bans, you lose the right. The 86 MG ban, AWB, and "sporting purpose" clause are RKBA violations. Needing to be a law abiding18 year old to buy a rifle is not.
Hoppy  8420
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 11:03:02 AM EDT
[#6]
the title of "trench broom" has been given to many different weapons, including the 1897 model Winchester shotgun and the BAR. thanks for all the responses |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 11:07:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Yeah... I'm not too crazy about the idea of Bill Gates building up his own private army and taking over Canada. As for foreign countries though.... I have nothing against privateer companies and soldiers of fortune. For some people, fighting may be their only skill. As long as they are not renting themselves out to interests contrary to our Nations, I really can't say much against it. It isn't the kind of thing I'd do for a living, but to each their own. I'd have a tendancy to trust hundreds of competing "security companies" more than I would a standing army under one elected officials control. The Founders were right in a lot of their suspicion of standing armies under government control. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 11:11:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Are you sure? Google is showing up the Thompson .45 as the first to be knicknamed a "trench broom" from the sweeping action you would do as you were hosing out the lead. "Streetsweepers" are a more common name for a rather intimidating looking, modern semi-auto shotgun. And yes, I would stand in the ring against Mike Tyson for two rounds just to get one or either firearm legally knowing full well that I could be buried with it as a result. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 11:21:14 AM EDT
[#9]
while they may not have been 'sawed off' (I bet they were), the were shorter than the current definition. TXL |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 11:28:49 AM EDT
[#10]
A citizen, IMO, should be able to own anything short of NBC weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 12:23:44 PM EDT
[#11]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 12:41:42 PM EDT
[#12]
RKBA, IMO, ends at crew served weapons. that is about as high as you can go and still argue that they you bear them rather than service/use/man/drive them ( like atillery)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 12:54:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Ahhh, but there is the rub. While they were privately owned, they were also licensed by the government to do so. Thus, they were in fact restricted to the terms of the license. If they exceeded those terms they could also be branded a Pirate and hunted down by the government. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 12:57:32 PM EDT
[#14]
I can own a 20MM cannon as a destructive device. I can own a T-38 fighter as a restricted category aircraft. Only the honor system prevents a melding of the two. Would you stay up at night worrying about whether or not your rich neighbor has installed legally owned cannons on his legally owned Mig-15? That is where we are right now and no one has a problem with it. Do you think there would be some fundamental change if the owner of such equipment were allowed (made legal) to hang the first item on the second? Of course not. Very few nut cases have the money required to put such equipement together. This is probably why no one had a problem with privately owned ships armed with cannon. A wealthy ship owner is not likely to wig out and start an attack on anyone.
You "Common Sense" and NICS check people need to realize that the RTKBA it a check on the government not a privelage handed out by it. ANY laws or restrictions at the FEDERAL level are a violation. Planerench out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:10:10 PM EDT
[#15]
+1! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:15:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Actually, can't you get FAA approval to mount guns and cannons on helicopters and airplanes? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:15:36 PM EDT
[#17]
You can do that already, if you have the bank. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:16:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Actually, no. They were PREVIOUSLY armed. The letters of M&R allowed them to go out and do acts which would otherwise be considered piracy though, that is correct. I found a jpg of a notice listing some private ships and their armaments once. I'll see if I can dig it up again. Here it is... PIrate document collection |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:19:36 PM EDT
[#19]
My personal line in the sand goes like this,
There is no need for any federal restrictions on arms short of NBC/WMD. If a state wants to ban or restrict ownership of a weapon, it needs to ban that weapon for everybody in the state, LEOs included. No registration, taxation or permits. The second amendment is there to protect us from an oppressive government. Any tool with a legitimate LE use is a legitimate tool for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:21:51 PM EDT
[#20]
And if you a retarded typical "watch this and hold my beer........." type and you fuck up with a nuke....you take out the whole city. USUALLY with small-arms you only take out yourself or (unfortunately) a couple other people. There is a difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 1:30:04 PM EDT
[#21]
There sure is. While Bubba can afford your average $200 Mossberg 500, he'd be hard pressed to round up the few MILLION it would take to close the deal on a nuke. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 2:00:11 PM EDT
[#22]
as far as the oridanance goes prior to th gca og 68 one could mail order a live motar or howitzer direct t o your door and it wasnt a problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 2:12:08 PM EDT
[#23]
That kind of fits my take on it. I think MGs should be opened up to anyone with just the free market being the limiting factor. I'm all for limiting it to infantry, or man portable weapons. Hell, I'd vote for a National FOID card if it got us that, and an ammendment to the constitution that clarifies 2A beyond a shadow of doubt in either sides mind. To be honest, I don't understand Gun Control. The other side can't be so stupid to think it affects anyone beyond law abiding citizens. Hell, aren't they the ones who want to decriminilze drugs because we can't stop them from coming into the country? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 2:27:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Any man regardless of his station in life or country he lives deserves to own whatever it takes to defend himself from the oppression of any governmental or non-governmental entity that comes his way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 2:28:49 PM EDT
[#25]
I think I'm going to go with "anything the military has, we should be able to have". The whole idea of the 2nd amendment is to provide a means of taking over the government. The only possible exception I see is NBC. I have been convinced that "gun control" advocates are unwilling or unable to accept a comprimise, and if one is accepted will work for another comprimise, closer to their goal of gun elimination. This leaves me unwilling to comprimise with them. I do not belive background checks (though they should be one time affairs) are unreasonable for DDs and possibly MGs and "silencers", but unless "gun control" advocates show me an acceptance of comprimises I will continue to fight against them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 2:37:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Haven't read the whole thread, so I'm just replying to the orginal question...
If the personal RKBA was still held to the test of our other Rights then it would end at the point at which it infringes on another person's rights. Similar to the popular yelling fire in a crowded theater (without there being a fire) example of your right to free speech. So, just as an example...if you held a gun to your neighbors face telling him to take down his John Kerry signs your infringing on his right to free speech, as well as threatened his right to life. Granted, that's an extreme example...and our .gov doesn't seem to see the RKBA that way anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 3:17:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Does the citizen's name have jack-squat to do with anything? really? Obviously, WMDs are an extreme example but the constitution was written when cannon and armed warships where held in private property; the Founders didn't flinch at that. In those days, private citizens held the firepower to level towns! There is a huge amount of trust put into the responsibility of the armed populace, no matter what the weapon in question is. And frankly, who's to say how high society should place that limit of responsibility? Using common sense is highly subjective as we all know from hearing the blather of "common sense gun legislation". This kind of "common sense" is why M16s cost over $10K. BTW, for all y'all that subscribe to the notion that the 2d Amendment is there to protect us against domestic tyranny, even those of us with the $$$ to have Class III goodies (or pick 'em up "on the second day of the revolution") won't be able to do a damn thing. Now, patriots with nukes...hmmm....whole different storyhronism.But hey, society gets the government it deserves, so we probably don't deserve nukes. Or class III and DDs and sonic disruptors for that matter.hat
Private jets with 20mm cannon on hard points? Hell, yeah! That's freedom, baby! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 4:58:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Thank goodness for GCA68! It finally put an end to all those drive-by mortarings and howitzerings! Personally, I'm up for any arm that can be considered defensive. On a personal/community level, that includes everything but WMDs. Who cares if it's legal to make grenades without paying a ridiculous tax. In case you hadn't figured it out, the bad guys don't have to pay the tax. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2004 11:48:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Nope it doesn't. So anything you don't mind Bubba the Redneck having in his pickup truck could also be in the truck of the muslim immigrant who got his citizenship 3 days ago. [montypython] nukes are right out [/montypython] |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 12:24:28 AM EDT
[#30]
I think that, with possibly a few exceptions, if you can carry it, it qualifies as "bearing arms" and thus legit. While I think it would be cool, I'm not sure I want to see C-4 for sale at Wal-Mart for just anyone to pick up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 12:29:22 AM EDT
[#31]
It actually is very simple.
Define arms. Or define what the Founders meant by arms. Here is my (and most dictionaries) definition- {a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense} That pretty much sums it up.  Everything from that rock on the ground to the Starship Enterprise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 3:37:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 Megawatt range.....
 j/kI really can't decide on what the limits if any should apply to the second. Granted I believe that if you can pick it up, you should be able to buy it without worring about members of the goverment beating down your door. I don't like the idea of someone purchasing Atomic Annie, but if you want to pick up a 105mm or 155mm, as long as you can afford it, more power to ya. (good luck finding a range with room though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:17:58 AM EDT
[#33]
I was watching the UN gun debate and really appreciated Wayne LaPierre's answer.
Because, to be honest, I myself lacked a good response to that typical "anti" question. Basically he said discriminant weapons (the opposite of indiscriminant weapons - ie. WMDs) are RKBA. I thought about it, and think it should be explained something like this: A sniper rifle is like a scalpel in military terms - a highly discriminant weapon. As is a knife or bayonet, or a handgun. All of these devices make really small holes in things. Yes, there can be damage behind the target, but a bullet makes a very small hole in things, even if that small hole can be fatal. A bomb makes a much bigger hole, putting it into the indiscriminant category because it is very likely to affect not only the target but the surrounding area. Unless they make bullets that with one shot will vaporize a city, guns remain highly discriminant weapons. Possible exception might be mg's and miniguns, but those are already under very heavy regulation (NFA). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:47:10 AM EDT
[#34]
I would make an exception for explosives specifically designed for hard targets and armor penetration. Sometimes you need a bigger scalpel.  Cluster bombs and Napalm are another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 5:47:23 AM EDT
[#35]
I can make a passable napalm-like substance in my garage with gasoline and Palmolive. The propellent for most firearms cartridges is considered an explosive. We let them go that way with the definition, and we'll be back to using crossbows as they'll simply legislate and regulate gunpowder out of existance.
Heck, they already ARE trying. Having fun with those HazMat fees ordering ammo/reloading supplies online? Washingtons "every terrible implement of the soldier" comment applies. I'd trust my next door neighbor with more explosives and firearms than I would our local BATFE agent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 6:17:49 AM EDT
[#36]
Kinetic energy man portable weapons (aka if it shoots bullets and you can move it yourself....) But I don't know...a thermonuclear weapon would cost billions of dollars to develop, I doubt anyone would SERIOUSLY try (private citizen)...
I wouldn't like it if Bill Gates had a some ICBMs just for the hell of it....that's not good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 6:24:21 AM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 6:27:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Of course. That was a definition I was offering to fellow shooters (people of sound mind  ). A more robust one would be needed for law. My point was that certain explosive devices do fall into the "surgical" category.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 8:30:21 AM EDT
[#39]
You rang? Attention K-Mart shoppers! Blue light special in aisle 14. Five gallon jugs of napalm on sale for only $14.95! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 12:11:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Yawn....are you the real thing or that crappy gasoline/styrofoam concoction? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 12:24:26 PM EDT
[#41]
1) As much as we can get
2) Whatever is necessary for armed civilians to be able to fend off a tyrannical government 3) Similar equipment to any member of a well-armed infantry squad 4) Not enough for an individual to destroy an entire community before the community can respond 5) In light of the new pain-weapon technology, video cameras, money tracking, lasers, space-based weapons and aircraft, it may not be possible even at this point to organize and successfully fight against tyranny. The infrastructure to fight the war on terrorism has the side-effect of making rebellion more difficult. How are we going to get rid of terrorists and maintain our ability to fight tyranny? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 12:26:53 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:23:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Remember, man-portable anti-aircraft missiles (ie. Strella, Stinger, etc) are also infantry weapons. Not to sound to much like the Brady Bunch and the Million Mommies, but do we really want that much firepower given to some nutcase? On the other hand, such a device would likely be necessary to defend against tyrannical.gov Like all of this issue, there is only trade-offs; no win-win plan. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:30:43 PM EDT
[#44]
With John "Commie" Kerry, if the Liberals get their way!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:34:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Okay, so we've got Bubba out of the question via his checkbook. Now, remember what that Aum Shirikio cult did in Japan. Private NBC program. Or even better, rich dude (say Bill Gates) has a divorce, wife takes most of his money - he gets pissed and says goodbye world in a very dramatic way! Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're sane! Anyone remember that Du Pont heir who had tons of weapons legally including a couple APC's. He eventually shot someone and went to a mental health facility. Now imagine if his hobby had been nukes and he got pissed....... Don't tell me it doesn't happen - rich people have gone nuts and had rampages, suicide-murders, suicide-by-cop, etc. Most involve them losing $$$$. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:34:56 PM EDT
[#46]
RKBA ends when whatever weapon you want isn't able to be carried on the person of, and operated by a single individual (eg when you NEED a crew to operate the weapon), or any indirect-fire weapon (eg a weapon that you fire at (or leave behind in hopes that it will destroy) a target you cannot see)... So: Protected (Arms): Rifles Portable Machineguns Shotguns Direct-fire rocket-launchers Grenade launchers Grenades NOT Protected ('Ordinance'): Artillery (Tube, Rocket, or Mortar) Tanks Armed Aircraft Warships Ballistic Missiles WMD Mines Bombs Now, it should be noted that our government allows us to own several types of weapons that are/should-not-be protected, such as artilery weapons, rocket-launchers, and such (they are NFA destructive devices)... Which is good... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 4:38:18 PM EDT
[#47]
My take that I put up yesterday in that other post...
People can own small arms for defense against tyranny or anything else. This way, in order to force a change of government, the govt would need to do something terribly bad to mobilize the armed population (lots of people, small weapons). If people were allowed to own battleships, WMDs, RPGs(?)- anyone who flipped out or was pissed at the govt could do a lot of damage, possibly topple it. Nice theory I think, but it gets fuzzier on some issues like grenades, rocket launchers, etc. They are 'indiscriminate' but definitely have a place in fighting a war - I guess if there were a civil war, black market weapons would find their way in anways. Automatic weapons - Everyone can own them. You just need to pay a tax, $200, which isnt too bad and go through a background check. The law that doesnt allow people to buy new ones is ridiculous though, and is only intended to keep these out of civilian hands. Thats not right. If you can pass the background check - it shouldnt matter if the gun costs 10 dollars or ten thousand dollars. Fair market price, small tax and background check I think would be alright. States should not be allowed to restrict our rights on the 2A, heck, they are supposed to be the ones defending our rights from the Feds. Remember, if bad stuff happens, we dont have to fight a conventional war in the plains of Kansas. It would be guerilla war, in certain pockets of the country. chances are, the whole military would not side with the govt either - many of those weapons would probably become available, even planes, tanks, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 6:17:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Wasn't the idea behind 5/19/86 was that all civ MGs woudl wear out/break at some point.. *shrug* |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 6:50:48 PM EDT
[#49]
.
Damn, I miss the delete button. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2004 6:53:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Now your shit is hot!
HS1 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
