8th Circuit bans machine gun ownership
I knew this one was coming. It was inevitable, after the DC v. Heller decision.
In Heller, the Supremes said that the 2nd amendment's protection of our right to own and carry guns, did not extend to "dangerous or unusual weapons", or weapons not "in common usage". Leaving aside the question of how something that wasn't dangerous could be called a weapon at all, the "not in common usage" part left us ripe for a continuation of all the unconstitutional laws the anti-gun-rights people have been building up over the years.
In 1934 the government made a law saying that anyone buyig a machine gun had to pay a $200 tax (more than many such guns were worth back then) and go through and incredible amount of paperwork, waiting periods, etc. And this during a massive depression where people were earning $5/day if they were lucky enough to have a job at all. Later the govt banned the manufacture of machine guns, and banned any importation of them. As a result of all this, the supply of such items dwindled and prices skyrocketed.
And surprise, surprise! Today machine guns are "not in common usage" at all! Gee, who would have ever guessed THAT would be the result, eh?
And now we have the 8th Circuit deciding that since they are "not in common usage", due mostly to unconstitutional Federal laws over the years, its' OK to remove the 2nd amendment's protection of people who want to own them now - an even worse violation of the 2nd.
Only in America......!!
As I've said, the efforts of the anti-gun-rights people will remain unceasing. Every bit of this battle will have to be fought, as we wrest our rights back from them. This just openes another of the many fronts on which we have to fight.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/appea...endment_claim/
Appeals Court Rejects Militia Organizer's Second Amendment Claim
Posted 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal appeals court has ruled a man who organized his own militia did not have a Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.
Hollis Wayne Fincher had argued that his Washington County Militia was a well-regulated militia that was protected by the amendment. A federal judge rejected his claim and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in an Aug. 13 opinion (PDF).
The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn't make: that he has an individual right to own a machine gun under the Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The June 26 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home, but said the right "is not unlimited."
The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. "Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use," the appeals court said.
The 8th Circuit opinion also said Fincher's militia was not affiliated with the state and not subject to protection as a well-regulated militia.
In Heller, the Supremes said that the 2nd amendment's protection of our right to own and carry guns, did not extend to "dangerous or unusual weapons", or weapons not "in common usage". Leaving aside the question of how something that wasn't dangerous could be called a weapon at all, the "not in common usage" part left us ripe for a continuation of all the unconstitutional laws the anti-gun-rights people have been building up over the years.
In 1934 the government made a law saying that anyone buyig a machine gun had to pay a $200 tax (more than many such guns were worth back then) and go through and incredible amount of paperwork, waiting periods, etc. And this during a massive depression where people were earning $5/day if they were lucky enough to have a job at all. Later the govt banned the manufacture of machine guns, and banned any importation of them. As a result of all this, the supply of such items dwindled and prices skyrocketed.
And surprise, surprise! Today machine guns are "not in common usage" at all! Gee, who would have ever guessed THAT would be the result, eh?
And now we have the 8th Circuit deciding that since they are "not in common usage", due mostly to unconstitutional Federal laws over the years, its' OK to remove the 2nd amendment's protection of people who want to own them now - an even worse violation of the 2nd.
Only in America......!!
As I've said, the efforts of the anti-gun-rights people will remain unceasing. Every bit of this battle will have to be fought, as we wrest our rights back from them. This just openes another of the many fronts on which we have to fight.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/appea...endment_claim/
Appeals Court Rejects Militia Organizer's Second Amendment Claim
Posted 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal appeals court has ruled a man who organized his own militia did not have a Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.
Hollis Wayne Fincher had argued that his Washington County Militia was a well-regulated militia that was protected by the amendment. A federal judge rejected his claim and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in an Aug. 13 opinion (PDF).
The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn't make: that he has an individual right to own a machine gun under the Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The June 26 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home, but said the right "is not unlimited."
The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. "Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use," the appeals court said.
The 8th Circuit opinion also said Fincher's militia was not affiliated with the state and not subject to protection as a well-regulated militia.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I reckon I slept thru all those states voting to amend the BOR, allowing for federal and state infringment of 'shall not be infringed'.
But what do you care, beast-loverTORY.
Fixed it for you, friend.0 -
originally posted by Duckster:
Well that vision doesn't control. what controls today is what 200 years of case law and legislation that was passed by the people's elected representatives says. That's the truth of the matter. This isn't the founders' society today. It's ours. We control today, not a bunch of guys who died two centuries ago. And they meant for us to decide our own laws, which is why they wrote the Constitution to allow that freedom for future generations.
Dumpster,
Let me give you a little insight on that "bunch of guys who died two centuries ago."
Those men (and they were, in every sense of the word), understood something about freedom and liberty that you and I cannot fathom. They fully understood that if their efforts failed, not only would liberty die, but they would die with it. Many did, but due to their efforts, freedom was secured. After having just fought an oppressive government, they took steps to ensure that, if the future government of America ever became as the one they just fought, the people would have the means to "throw it off", and "alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The principle means to effect this would be to affirm that "the people" would always have the right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the 2nd Amendment, specifically "the right", was no accident. The Founders (you know, the bunch of guys who died two centuries ago) knew all too well how oppressive goverments can be and how oppressive they can become. I believe the Founders knew beyond all doubt that eventually, evil would creep into the leadership of this Republic. They were 100% correct, and it shows they possessed great wisdom. They knew the difference between a "right" and a "privilege."
I know this is not popular with gun owners who willingly accept "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions, but the Founders neither intended nor approved of any government restriction/regulation of our rights, including the RTKBA.
Dumpster, you may consider your "perversion" of the Founders to be accurate, but it is my belief that had you been alive during that time, you would have been tarred and feathered.0 -
Spot on wsfiredude, spot on. Never far from the mark,though, are ya [;)] 0 -
You squirrels won't fight to any death. Big-talkers like you guys are always the first to fold and run. It's always been that way and always will be. It's easy to talk trash when you know that you're never going to have the chance to put up, but even if your fantasies did come true and a civil war broke out, the first bullet that cracks overhead will send every wanna-be warrior and faux patriot on this thread scampering off leaving a trail of poop behind.
I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.0 -
quote:and how our government works
I am quite sure you could go on for hours and hours about this subject.
Unfortunately, I fear ordinary citizens would get so violently sick to their stomach with the corruption, sleaze, and crawling maggots all over the tale they would be unable to continue listening.0 -
originally posted by Dumpster:
I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works.
Heh Heh. Imbecile.0 -
quote:I know real warriors. Ain't any [besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.
When ever you feel froggy. You talk like you are quite something. I am sure you are ONLY impressing yourself. You really wouldn't want to tangle with me.
For someone who claims to know so much, you quickly resort to name calling because you can't win the arguement. Is it past your bedtime yet? Is momma calling you for supper?0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:I know real warriors. Ain't any [besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.
When ever you feel froggy. You talk like you are quite something. I am sure you are ONLY impressing yourself. You really wouldn't want to tangle with me.
For someone who claims to know so much, you quickly resort to name calling because you can't win the arguement. Is it past your bedtime yet? Is momma calling you for supper?
[:D][:D][:D]0 -
This is the first time in months that I have posted to this forum. I feel compeled to as a result of reading the arogance and ignorance of Duckbutts posts. It is clear that he is a fairweather friend of gun rights. He has the ability to buy Automatic weapons and pay the fees involoved and thinks he is so pro gun for doing so. What he fails to realize,(and what we all know) is that one day, at the drop of a hat, the same Gov. that he he believes has the final say in all things, can and someday will knock on his door and take all his little machine guns and with a tip of the hat be gone. More over. He will probably thank them for protecting his dumb ass from himself. Duckbutt is also the guy that we all must watch closley as he would turn in anyone of us to gain favor from the Gov. He is no friend of true RTKBA supporters.
He said something to the effect that the 1934 restrictions on machine guns was in answer to the criminal element using such weapons in crimes they commited. But he failed to tell us how many of these major criminal syndicates turned in their machine guns. Capone? Segal? Kelly? Any of them ? I don't think so. Reading historical accounds of those times I believe they all kept their machine guns. And I still see many drive by accounts of Ak-47s being used today in street gangs. Doesn't seem to be a very effective restriction does it? Not in terms of crime control or reduction.
Oh and Duckbutt, the ONLY reason constitutional rights are not absolute is because of people like you. People who are so willing to go along to get a long. People who have been incrementalized to the point of non-existence. And I'm not saying that the rest are any better or worse. Because we all have to obey the law to a certain point. But at some point, that line will be crossed. Where will you be when that day comes? Only you can answer that for sure. But I have a pretty good idea.0 -
Welcome back, 45Long...and a resounding 'Barroooom' from that fine old round, it is, Indeed !! HEAR that 'SMACK'...AS IT HITS HOME ON ITS TARGET !!
Proud..that is the only word I can say. We have some of the finest men in the world posting on this forum. Certainly a pleasure to be allowed to associate with men understanding what keeps America free.0 -
Highball
Hey guy. Thanks for the kind words. I still might not be back entirely. I still have to high of an intolerance for certain people in these rooms. But I think if I can stay out of the politics room I "might" be ok.
This guy just hit a nerve I could not ignore. Again, thanks for the encouragement.0 -
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.[;)]
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site![xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Aside from all the personal attacks and name calling. What he said is the reality of our world. Right or wrong, like it or not. The laws have been allowed to stand for along time and they can only be changed in two ways.
1. Judicial review.
2. Legislative action.
Unless, as I ask before, you are willing to start shooting.[;)]
We need people/voters and ALOT of money to accomplish this.
And if you want to start a shooting war you will need even more of the same.
By the way I have been under the gun from full auto fire both in RVN and CS, and I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site![xx(]
Except for one thing, Jim: full auto restrictions don't keep crooks from obtaining full auto capabilities. I think a criminal would have an easier time getting a full auto than an honest citizen. I can't even get one here in NY even though I am granted a concealed carry permit (yes, you have to "get permission" and it rankles the spirit) and passed all the background checks associated with NY laws. If NY thinks it's OK for me to carry a concealed ahndgun, why can't I have full auto? Am I all of the sudden going to change long-standing standards of personal conduct?
Some stuff just doesn't make sense, and here in the PRNY gun laws are about top of that list...........0 -
quote:I am damn glad there is a restriction on full auto weapons. Not everyone is as responsible as those on this site!
Providing unrestricted access for our citizens, to "military equivalent" personal arms is the absolute basis of Amendment II's intent.
"Shall not be infringed".
Seems a simple concept to me.
"Bad acts" are to be punished. Arms are not to be restricted.
Well, at least not under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but we have already established, here in America, that the Constitution is largely irrelevant to the government and to most of our citizens.0 -
Jeff,
The restriction passed into Law in 1934 was necessary at the time. If it is not necessary now then work to repeal it. I personaly think it is necessary. I do not agree with the states totaly out lawing them. I have several friends with several FA weapons. Many of the states, and local juristictions have violated our rights to a much greater degree than the feds. Now if these were violations of any of our 'other' of our 'civil right' the fed would intervine on our behalf. But they don't. This one of the thinks that really pi$$ me off in this fight![V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
The restriction passed into Law in 1934 was necessary at the time. If it is not necessary now then work to repeal it. I personaly think it is necessary. I do not agree with the states totaly out lawing them. I have several friends with several FA weapons. Many of the states, and local juristictions have violated our rights to a much greater degree than the feds. Now if these were violations of any of our 'other' of our 'civil right' the fed would intervine on our behalf. But they don't. This one of the thinks that really pi$$ me off in this fight![V]
No Jim, it wasn't necessary then and it isn't necessary now.
We simply had a number of criminal individuals, some banded together as gangs, who were committing heinous criminal acts while using full-auto firearms in some cases. Citizens were not running amok slaughtering one another, even though full-auto's were available to them.
Criminal individuals and gangs STILL commit heinous criminal acts while using firearms, even though many are restricted, or declared illegal. Full-auto firearms are STILL available to those who choose to obtain them "off the books" or illegally.
Responsible citizens are simply restricted in their ability to own, possess, or use full-auto firearms, contrary to the simple and clear language of Amendment II.
That is the 'reality' that you speak of Jim.
All that occurred was one of the first Amendment II violations by government, a government who used a method strangely reminiscent of the Hegalian Dialectic's "Triad of the Created Crisis".
This is a classic case of failing to focus on "bad acts" and rather focusing, due to an agenda, on firearms. There is a distinct reason for the focus on firearms by the government and collectivist-minded people.
The Triad...Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.
Step #1, Thesis....either create, or capitalize on an existing "crisis".
Step #2, Antithesis....whip the populace up with either anger or fear of the "crisis".
Step #3, Synthesis....step in and offer a "solution" to "fix" the "crisis", while taking additional government power, or restricting further on individual liberty, all willingly accepted, or demanded, by the people because of "the crisis".0 -
rk,
No 'written' law, statute, regulation will ever 'keep' any criminal from doing anything or obtaining anything they want. The laws make it harder for them to accomplish their goals and give us the authority to take action when they do.
So I guess you think we need to just do away with them, correct. The statutes give those in authority, like Jeff and I and many others in LE, to take actions when there is a violation. Many of these law need to be taken off the books. Many need to be ammended, but LAWS (restrictions on people and their behavior) ARE NEED TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN A VERY ORDERLESS WORLD.
This is REALITY.[:)]
We will have to agree to disagree on the Laws restricting FA weapons.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
rk,
No 'written' law, statute, regulation will ever 'keep' any criminal from doing anything or obtaining anything they want. The laws make it harder for them to accomplish their goals and give us the authority to take action when they do.
So I guess you think we need to just do away with them, correct. The statutes give those in authority, like Jeff and I and many others in LE, to take actions when there is a violation. Many of these law need to be taken off the books. Many need to be ammended, but LAWS (restrictions on people and their behavior) ARE NEED TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN A VERY ORDERLESS WORLD.
This is REALITY.[:)]
We will have to agree to disagree on the Laws restricting FA weapons.[;)]
I understand how laws are needed, but most of these laws are mis-directed. How does keeping me from having FA facilitate law and order? Seems to me there should be more effort into criminal control. Since they can get them anyway, how are the laws having a positive impact for LE? I can see making stiffer penalties for using any firearm in the commission of a crime, but restricting honest citizens access to weapons while the criminals access is not impeded isn't helping anyone, LEO's or civilian.0 -
Does the current Fed law keep you from owning a FA weapon? Why?[?]
I am sorry, (on edit) I just realized you said the state law keeps you from owning the FAW. This is wrong and the FEDS SHOULD have put a stop to this![:(!]0 -
No offense guys,........BUT the only folks that will commit crimes, and "slaughters" with FA firearms, are criminal elements that don't worry about laws in the first place.
They buy them out of someone's trunk, plain and simple.
The only ones inconvenienced, and stripped of rights, as per usual, are honest, law-abiding citizens.
I don't personally give a hoot about "machine guns", as I prefer one well placed shot, over "spray, and pray",........but that isn't the point.
Our wonderful politicians, in an effort to avoid admitting that they cannot control crime efficiently, get behind these inane laws so that the "sheeple" populace can "feel good", and think they are being protected.
I could have 10 FA firearms, and it makes me no more of a danger to an innocent person than I am right now.
Reason being,.........I am a law abiding citizen.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Duckster
You squirrels won't fight to any death. Big-talkers like you guys are always the first to fold and run. It's always been that way and always will be. It's easy to talk trash when you know that you're never going to have the chance to put up, but even if your fantasies did come true and a civil war broke out, the first bullet that cracks overhead will send every wanna-be warrior and faux patriot on this thread scampering off leaving a trail of poop behind.
I know real warriors. Ain't any (besides me) posting to this thread, let me tell ya. So you fat-bodied non-hackers can sit here and circle-jerk each other about how bad-assed you are. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to explain to you just how little you actually know about our founders, the Constitution, and how our government works. You can't fix stupid so I don't try.
Too broad-brush. (Item in red). I generally let the palaver ebb and flow, and just sit back and absorb. It's educating, and amusing too.
Just thought I'd jump in. Make my presence known. There's a lot of folks like me hiding in the wings. Make no mistake about that. Best, Joe0 -
Marc,
Then don't have a problem with the dealer of the FAW verifing that fact?[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Marc,
Then don't have a problem with the dealer of the FAW verifing that fact?[;)]
I have the same problem with that, as I do now going through NICS checks for anything, and everything.
I also feel the same way about having to spend hours of my time to get my CCW permit, and having to renew it with more fees.
The second amendment is clear, as is the rest of the Constitution.
Nothing in that, nor the BOR, that I have read concerning governance, nor "jumping through hoops" to have what was already there.
I DO see thousands of laws concerning improper use of firearms in crimes,.......including murder. There are already penalties by law for those that break them.
I say enforce the laws against the criminal element, and leave honest,..........and FREE law abiding citizens be.
Criminals belong in prison, or to have a swift execution,......problem gone.
How do you "verify" the criminal that buys one out of a trunk, as I initially mentioned?
Only an "honest" citizen will be "verified" by the authorities,........criminals have already lost their legal rights.
That includes the majority of our worries, such as illegal MS-13 gang members from the barbaric invasion of our country.
I guess I simply see things differently than you do. I once was part of the "I don't have anything to hide" gang, but I have grown tired of kissing butts over the years.0 -
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type. I do think the governmnet as went to far in their efforts to keep 'bad' guys from lawfully purchasing guns. The DV clause really upsets me.[:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type.
why?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes, I do not agree we should have to go through this crap to buy a gun, unless it is the FAW or the like. Then I would support this.
The FAW's and other crew served types could and should be look at as WMD of the indididual type. I do think the governmnet as went to far in their efforts to keep 'bad' guys from lawfully purchasing guns. The DV clause really upsets me.[:(!]
I must respectfully disagree with you on the above.
NOTHING in the Constitution about "crew served" weapons,......and BTW, I don't consider a FAW a "crew served weapon." I am not getting into details such as the M-16 as compared to a SAW, but I hope you understand my thoughts in the context of this discussion.
Wonder how many loaded the old brown bess while the shooters were firing? Was that an 18th. century "crew served weapon?"
There is a lot about having the ability, and the RIGHT, to eliminate a corrupt, and tyrannical government though.
I always thought that was what founded this once great nation.
I call a FAW, a machine gun,......they are of no value to me, as I am a good enough shot to drop an adversary at quite a range, without needing to spray 500 rounds.
Now if I am into horticulture, and want to "till" my garden,......then I might have a use, but it would be quite expensive with ammo prices the way they are.
I prefer to use the proper tool for the job.[;)]0 -
Marc, you're not qualified to handle FAW just as you're not qualified to have an opinion on laws regarding FAWs and "crew operated" weapons. This is why we have Jim Raus of the world. 0 -
Thank you Marc, for RESPECTFULY disagreeing. The 2nd does not say anything about this class of weapons, how could it, they were not even imagined then!!! We have to deal with any 'new' classes of weapons as they are developed.
Because I have seen, first hand, what this class of weapon can and does do in the wrong hands I am compelled to try and see, with a minimal 'restriction' to our 'rights', us take some minor precautions to keep those who are known criminals from LAWFULLY buying them. The system we currently use to check ALL of us would be fine for this class of weapon. I DO NOT support either system currently in place requiring the check for 'common' firearms, nor the background check and tax stamp for the FAW.[V]0 -
Jim:
I think what is being said by Marc and maybe a couple of others is that the checks your talking about are ineffective. We have checks on everything today. Not just "FAW" weapons. And criminals still have no trouble getting them. Would there really be ANY difference if we limited our checks only to "FAW" purchases? The good guys would continue to be checked and the bad guys will not. Yet they will still be able to get their weapons. Just as they can now. No difference. No Change.
I think that "IF" any checks should be made, then it should be to find out whether or not your a U.S. Citizen. If your not, or at least a permanent resident, then you don't get our right to own a weapon. Just something I thought of.
As for what firearms were around at the time of the founding and the writing of the 2nd. That is irrelevent. By that reasoning, no firarm would be covered by the second because the founders never invisioned their existence. The 2nd covers all personal weapons. Be they a .22 or a Barrett .50 to a new SAW or M-60. I have know people who own cannons. And they fire them on occasion. Covered in the 2nd? Who knows. But I don't think he will be robbing any liquer stores with it. My point is, whether it fires at a rate of 10 shots per minutes or 500. Whether it muzzle loaded, magazine fed or belt fed. It's covered by the 2nd. Or should be as the founders intended.0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
Because I have seen, first hand, what this class of weapon can and does do in the wrong hands I am compelled to try and see, with a minimal 'restriction' to our 'rights', us take some minor precautions to keep those who are known criminals from LAWFULLY buying them.
Jim,
With all due respect, it is not a question of what a particular class of weapon(s) can do. The ensuing destruction wrought through the use of any weapon, be it a slingshot or a nuclear device, is first conceived in the mind of the user, not the weapon. Said destruction can be for good, or for evil, but is dependent upon the midset of the individual utilizing the weapon. Attempting to restrict a weapon due to it's perceived "potential lethality" is an exercise in futility.
Example:
M16A2 vs. Remington 700, both chambered for the 5.56x45. Given the same amount of ammuntion for each, equal results can be produced. Now, the individual using the M16 will accomplish those results at a much faster rate, but that in no way proves the point that an individual using a M16A2 is "more deadly" than another individual using the Remington 700. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.
Any individual wishing to do evil will exhaust all efforts possible to accomplish that goal. If that person does not have access to an M16, he may use shotgun. If not a shotgun, he may use a pistol. If not a pistol, he may use a machete. If not a machete, he may use a knife. If not a knife, he may use a ball-point pen. The weapon may change, but the evil doesn't, and neither do the results.
If we were to use the "class" of weapon argument, wouldn't it be logical to believe that a citizen has the right to confront his/her assilant with the same amount of force possessed by the assailant? I believe most would say, "Yes". With that being the case, why should a citizen have to jump through hoops and cut through red tape to possess an arm which the assailant simply obtains through "street channels"?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
119 comments