Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[FBM]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS??! O_O

It's another one of those things that refuse to be unseen.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't understand what difference it makes what arm one kills something with.
Handguns are not less "sporting" than a rifle (if that's the concern).
Handguns suitable for hunting large game are lighter and less cumbersome to tote than a rifle. One has to get closer, that should make them more "sporting".

To carry that out farther, there's no difference between shooting a paper target and a panda.

[orpheus]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS??! O_O

I think that's what the baby's asking too.

[Seth]

Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

It would be idiocy, if anyone had made that argument.
...but since nobody has, it is a strawman.

Fail.

Horseshit. All the hoplophobes and anti-gun zealots here have argued exactly that, BG being the foremost example.

[Kristie]

Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

It would be idiocy, if anyone had made that argument.
...but since nobody has, it is a strawman.

Fail.

Horseshit. All the hoplophobes and anti-gun zealots here have argued exactly that, BG being the foremost example.

Very few Americans actually want ALL guns banned. We just want them better regulated. Call me a hoplophobe if you want, and I'll stick with my decision that you're a paranoid gun nut.

[Seth]

I meant that the courts rule modern small arms to be all prima facial, but draw the line at things like RPGs which are 'bearable arms'.

Actually, you're wrong. The Supreme Court has never enunciated a top limit on the "arms" that the individual has a right to keep and bear. It has said that in particular, those arms that are suitable for use by the individual soldier (such as rifles, hand grenades, rocket launchers, knives, pistols, and any other individual weapon) are clearly within the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Even sawed-off shotguns are not forbidden or outside the protection of the 2nd Amendment. In US v Miller the court said:

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

This case did not make sawed-off shotguns illegal, it only affirmed the authority of the federal government to enforce the provisions of the National Firearms Act, which requires that certain types of arms, including machine guns, short rifles (< 16" barrel or < 26" overall length), short shotguns (barrel < 18"), and other "destructive devices" like explosives, hand grenades, explosive rounds, and any rifled-bore weapon greater than .50 caliber (cannons, 40mm grenade launchers, 105mm recoilless rifles, 20mm anti-tank guns, etc.) must be registered with the federal government and a tax must be paid on each transfer of the weapon. Thus, Miller and his cohort were charged with illegal possession of an unregistered non-tax exempt Class III firearm. Their defense claim was that the NFA itself was unconstitutional because it infringed on 2nd Amendment rights. The Court rejected this claim, holding that Congress does have the power to enact and enforce the NFA. But at the same time, the court was very careful not to say that sawed-off shotguns were NOT part of the "ordinary equipment" of a soldier (they are) they said that nobody party to the case had presented any such evidence to the Court, and they refused to judicially recognize a well-known military fact.

The upshot is that it's perfectly legal to own a short shotgun or short rifle, or machine gun, or bazooka, or LAW rocket, or hand grenade, or high-explosive artillery round, or 40mm grenade launcher and grenades, or artillery pieces, or tanks, or warships, or fighter jets or helicopters armed with 20mm Gatling guns. Hundreds of thousands of people own a panoply of the above and more, all perfectly legally. They just filled out a Form 4, sent in a check for $200, or $5 (depending on which type of weapon you're registering) to the BATFE and some six to nine months later, if they were not legally disqualified from owning firearms (ie they pass a background check) they get the tax stamp and paperwork in the mail and can then possess the registered arms.

Note that this is a tax revenue law and not a 2nd Amendment RKBA infringement, which is what Miller and other cases have stated. So long as you are not legally disqualified from owning ANY firearms (by felony conviction and some other disqualifiers) the government cannot refuse to issue the tax stamp. They have no discretion at all other than to confirm that you are lawfully entitled to possess firearms. That's why the NFA survived constitutional muster. If the NFA had flatly banned certain categories or types of firearms, it would have been found to be unconstitutional.

This brings up the "machine gun ban" of 1986 and the "assault weapons ban" of 1994. The laws are not bans on private ownership of either type of arm, they are bans on the manufacture for sale to the public of those arms that were enacted under the Congress' Commerce Clause authority. This means that no new machine guns may be offered for sale to the public if they are manufactured after 1986, and when it was in force, that no new "assault weapons" meeting the criteria of the law could be manufactured between 1994 and 2004. The "assault weapons" ban has expired, but the machine gun ban has not because it had no sunset provision like the "assault weapons" law did. But the 1986 machine gun law could be repealed by Congress anytime it wants to do so.

The upshot of the machine gun ban is that there is a limited pool of (hundreds of thousands) of "transferable"(to civilians) pre-ban machine guns, and none of them are less than 27 years old. But plenty of new machine guns are being designed, built and marketed in the US every year. They can only be sold as "post-ban dealer samples" to other NFA Class III licensed gun dealers or to governmental agencies. What this means is that the value of "transferable" machine guns has skyrocketed due to the limited supply. A Heckler & Koch MP5A1 9mm submachine gun, one of the most commonly seen in the movies, sells to a government agency for about $800. A 27 year old transferrable MP5 has a civilian market value of between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on condition. All other types of machine guns designed and manufactured prior to 1986 have a similar disparity in government versus civilian value.

But none of them are illegal to own.

Likewise with the semi-auto "assault weapons" ban, all that happened in reality is that manufacturers changed the names of some specifically named firearms (like the "AR-15") and deleted some of the cosmetic features defined in the ban (like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc.) and went right on manufacturing and selling the very same receiver and operational design without the banned cosmetic features. The prices for "pre-ban" "assault weapons" jumped a lot in the interim, but they quickly came back down, and dropped again when the ban expired. Prices have spiked right now because of the pending legislation, but manufacturers will go right on building the same rifles in a manner that complies with the law, in anticipation of the repeal of the law when the Democrats lose the House and Senate in 2016 BECAUSE they had the gall to mess around with our gun rights.

And since existing rifles of similar design are "grandfathered" by the proposed law, there will still be 20 million or more "assault weapons" in civilian hands, which means that some nutjob somewhere is going to steal one and use it to perpetrate another mass slaughter in a "gun free zone" like California, or a school, or DC (Oh, wait, thugs just mowed down 12 people in DC just the other day, despite DC's absolute ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity ammunition feeding devices...how did that happen?), and the hoplophobes and gun hating liberals will next demand universal firearms registration to make a universal background check effective, which will then lead to confiscations of registered firearms as they are made illegal feature by feature.

The problem with this Progressive piece of constitutional shredding is that we, the People, will neither tolerate nor obey such laws, which are on their face violations of our rights. They are unenforceable and will lead only to widespread disobedience and conflict and will merely reinforce distrust of the government and disrespect for its laws.

That's why such legislation will never endure.

So, to recap, it's perfectly legal to own any sort of "arms" suitable for use by the military other than "weapons of mass destruction" which are obviously a different category entirely (thus disposing of the typical Progressive "what about nukes" canard), if you can find one available on the civilian market and can afford to buy it. Like most Progressive/Marxist plots, this one doesn't stop people from getting arms, it merely disenfranchises the poor by making it too expensive for them to exercise their rights, thus enhancing class warfare tension.

The government controls access to military weapons (Stinger missiles, artillery rounds, tanks and suchlike) by enacting DOD policies that require that any government property that is purpose-built for war (like fighter jets and artillery) must be "demilitarized" before being sold to the public as scrap metal at DRMO auctions. Demilitarizing means to torch-cut, crush, melt or otherwise render the parts useless for the designed purpose prior to being removed from the government's possession.

Sometimes they screw up though. A guy I know bought 50 "demilled" 105mm recoilless rifles (Vietnam vintage) at an auction and discovered that five of them had been improperly cut, leaving the interrupted threads of the breech undamaged, allowing him to swap in undamaged breech blocks from other units to make five completely operable rifles, which he LEGALLY registered under the NFA and sold to private buyers.

Another fellow put together an F-104 Starfighter fighter jet for an attempt at the world record low-altitude speed run. He bought all the parts surplus at auction, and got the airframe, which had not been demilled (at the time it wasn't required...it is now) from the government and then rebuilt the jet from spare parts. The only thing he was lacking was a GE engine, and he had negotiated the purchase of one from General Electric when the DOD stepped in and threatened to cancel some contracts if they sold the guy the engine. GE cancelled the deal, but shortly later, the pilot received an anonymous donation of a brand-new GE jet engine from a benefactor.

He went on to set a new speed record.

Unfortunately, a year or two later the engine flamed out on takeoff and he had to eject, and the aircraft was destroyed in the crash.

But it goes to show you that the right to keep and bear arms (other than WMDs) has no legal upper limit, it has only practical limits imposed by government deliberately restricting access to surplus military equipment that might be rebuilt into operable NFA weapons.

And that's exactly how the Founders intended it. When the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, civilians owned all manner of arms, including artillery and armed merchant vessels, which were the "state of the art" at the time. The Constitution does not limit the advance of technology and does not constrain the right to only arms contemporary to the time of the Founders, it protects the right to keep and bear ALL arms, of whatever description or function.

[Seth]

Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

It would be idiocy, if anyone had made that argument.
...but since nobody has, it is a strawman.

Fail.

Horseshit. All the hoplophobes and anti-gun zealots here have argued exactly that, BG being the foremost example.

Very few Americans actually want ALL guns banned. We just want them better regulated. Call me a hoplophobe if you want, and I'll stick with my decision that you're a paranoid gun nut.

What do you mean by "better regulated?" The devil's in the details, you see. What hoplophobes usually mean by "better regulated" is "regulated in a manner that records every single firearm and its location and owner and every transfer or movement of that firearms anywhere." That may sound like "reasonable regulation" to you, but to me it's a recipe for tyranny, because, as has been proven by the experiences of New Jersey, California, Australia, the UK and quite literally every other place where guns must be registered and people must get the permission of the government to acquire, store, use or transport them, that "reasonable" plan always leads to gun confiscations. Always.

That's why we "paranoid gun nuts" refuse to comply with such laws and fight them at every turn. We know what you are angling for in the long run. Your minions in government have blown your cover and have admitted their true agenda. Here's Hillary Clinton:

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed--the Republicans will not reinstate it--are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

I will also work to make sure that police departments get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns, because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80% of the guns used in gun crimes got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008

We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented. We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. (Note: This final statement is a bald-faced lie)
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008

I think it’s important to remember that the crime rate was driven down, & gun violence was driven down in the 1990s because of a combination of policies, like 100,000 police on the street and getting assault weapons off the street...(Note: this last assertion is a lie, and research by the federal government showed that the "assault weapons" ban had almost no effect whatever on crime or gun violence.)
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum , Jul 12, 2007

“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com , Jun 2, 2000

The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases, time enough for authorities to check out a buyer’s record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.(Note: No, it didn't "ban" any existing firearm, and no, "killing people" is not the "only purpose" for such arms)
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.126 , Sep 25, 1996

And then there's Diane Feinstein:

The consuming passion of Dianne Feinstein's tenure in the Senate has been gun control. It is a passion that has been burned into her over many years of personal experiences with the brutal consequences of firearms. "We now have something happening in the US that has never happened before," Feinstein says grimly. "That is, children killing children with guns. Over 13 a day." Feinstein has been relentless in the battle, presenting a constant challenge to the NRA--including legislation designed to prohibit the manufacture and possession of military-style assault weapons, the Gun-Free School Act, and provisions to ban the import of high-capacity ammunition magazines. She is currently involved in writing legislation that will establish licensing and record of sale requirements for gun ownership. Such legislation, she believes, is the eventual solution to ensure that guns are only in the hands of responsible citizens and out of the hands of children and criminals.
Source: Nine and Counting, by Catherine Whitney, p.138-139 , Jul 25, 2000

This is not an esoteric subject for me. My life experience is such that I have seen firsthand what guns have done. I've walked in on robberies. I became mayor of San Francisco as a result of assassination.

As a supervisor, I had no protection so I got a gun permit and learned to shoot at the Police Academy. When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90--day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties. At that time, I turned in my pistol. That pistol and 14 others were melted down and sculpted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II during a trip to Rome later that year. The point is, I know where guns work for protection, and I know where they don't. I've lived a life that has been impacted by weapons, so this is not an esoteric, academic exercise for me. Nor is it a political exercise. I come to this issue because of real life experience.
Source: Nine and Counting, by Catherine Whitney, p.140 , Jul 25, 2000

Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons. Feinstein said her plan is intended to keep handguns and semi-automatic firearms away from “criminals, people with mental disabilities, and children.”

Under her plan, applicants for gun licenses would have to pay $25 and go to one of 100,000 federally licensed firearms dealers or to a state-certified office. The dealer or state-approved official would then record tithe gun sale and licensing with the Treasury Department. Applicants would be required to submit a thumb print, a photograph, their name, birthplace and address, and sign a statement swearing that the information is accurate. They would also have to pass a written firearms test, akin to a driver’s test, that would pose questions about the safe handling of firearms and the owner’s legal responsibility. The licenses would be renewable every five years and could be revoked.
Source: Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers , Apr 14, 2000

If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.
Source: 60 Minutes, 1995

So yes, there is a clear and present danger to our rights posed by an organized and long-standing agenda on the part of Marxists, Progressives and other liberal to ban and confiscate firearms, and it's mendacious to suggest there is not.

[Jason]

I meant that the courts rule modern small arms to be all prima facial, but draw the line at things like RPGs which are 'bearable arms'.

Actually, you're wrong. The Supreme Court has never enunciated a top limit on the "arms" that the individual has a right to keep and bear. It has said that in particular, those arms that are suitable for use by the individual soldier (such as rifles, hand grenades, rocket launchers, knives, pistols, and any other individual weapon) are clearly within the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Even sawed-off shotguns are not forbidden or outside the protection of the 2nd Amendment. In US v Miller the court said:

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

This case did not make sawed-off shotguns illegal, it only affirmed the authority of the federal government to enforce the provisions of the National Firearms Act, which requires that certain types of arms, including machine guns, short rifles (< 16" barrel or < 26" overall length), short shotguns (barrel < 18"), and other "destructive devices" like explosives, hand grenades, explosive rounds, and any rifled-bore weapon greater than .50 caliber (cannons, 40mm grenade launchers, 105mm recoilless rifles, 20mm anti-tank guns, etc.) must be registered with the federal government and a tax must be paid on each transfer of the weapon. Thus, Miller and his cohort were charged with illegal possession of an unregistered non-tax exempt Class III firearm. Their defense claim was that the NFA itself was unconstitutional because it infringed on 2nd Amendment rights. The Court rejected this claim, holding that Congress does have the power to enact and enforce the NFA. But at the same time, the court was very careful not to say that sawed-off shotguns were NOT part of the "ordinary equipment" of a soldier (they are) they said that nobody party to the case had presented any such evidence to the Court, and they refused to judicially recognize a well-known military fact.

The upshot is that it's perfectly legal to own a short shotgun or short rifle, or machine gun, or bazooka, or LAW rocket, or hand grenade, or high-explosive artillery round, or 40mm grenade launcher and grenades, or artillery pieces, or tanks, or warships, or fighter jets or helicopters armed with 20mm Gatling guns. Hundreds of thousands of people own a panoply of the above and more, all perfectly legally. They just filled out a Form 4, sent in a check for $200, or $5 (depending on which type of weapon you're registering) to the BATFE and some six to nine months later, if they were not legally disqualified from owning firearms (ie they pass a background check) they get the tax stamp and paperwork in the mail and can then possess the registered arms.

Note that this is a tax revenue law and not a 2nd Amendment RKBA infringement, which is what Miller and other cases have stated. So long as you are not legally disqualified from owning ANY firearms (by felony conviction and some other disqualifiers) the government cannot refuse to issue the tax stamp. They have no discretion at all other than to confirm that you are lawfully entitled to possess firearms. That's why the NFA survived constitutional muster. If the NFA had flatly banned certain categories or types of firearms, it would have been found to be unconstitutional.

This brings up the "machine gun ban" of 1986 and the "assault weapons ban" of 1994. The laws are not bans on private ownership of either type of arm, they are bans on the manufacture for sale to the public of those arms that were enacted under the Congress' Commerce Clause authority. This means that no new machine guns may be offered for sale to the public if they are manufactured after 1986, and when it was in force, that no new "assault weapons" meeting the criteria of the law could be manufactured between 1994 and 2004. The "assault weapons" ban has expired, but the machine gun ban has not because it had no sunset provision like the "assault weapons" law did. But the 1986 machine gun law could be repealed by Congress anytime it wants to do so.

The upshot of the machine gun ban is that there is a limited pool of (hundreds of thousands) of "transferable"(to civilians) pre-ban machine guns, and none of them are less than 27 years old. But plenty of new machine guns are being designed, built and marketed in the US every year. They can only be sold as "post-ban dealer samples" to other NFA Class III licensed gun dealers or to governmental agencies. What this means is that the value of "transferable" machine guns has skyrocketed due to the limited supply. A Heckler & Koch MP5A1 9mm submachine gun, one of the most commonly seen in the movies, sells to a government agency for about $800. A 27 year old transferrable MP5 has a civilian market value of between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on condition. All other types of machine guns designed and manufactured prior to 1986 have a similar disparity in government versus civilian value.

But none of them are illegal to own.

Likewise with the semi-auto "assault weapons" ban, all that happened in reality is that manufacturers changed the names of some specifically named firearms (like the "AR-15") and deleted some of the cosmetic features defined in the ban (like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc.) and went right on manufacturing and selling the very same receiver and operational design without the banned cosmetic features. The prices for "pre-ban" "assault weapons" jumped a lot in the interim, but they quickly came back down, and dropped again when the ban expired. Prices have spiked right now because of the pending legislation, but manufacturers will go right on building the same rifles in a manner that complies with the law, in anticipation of the repeal of the law when the Democrats lose the House and Senate in 2016 BECAUSE they had the gall to mess around with our gun rights.

And since existing rifles of similar design are "grandfathered" by the proposed law, there will still be 20 million or more "assault weapons" in civilian hands, which means that some nutjob somewhere is going to steal one and use it to perpetrate another mass slaughter in a "gun free zone" like California, or a school, or DC (Oh, wait, thugs just mowed down 12 people in DC just the other day, despite DC's absolute ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity ammunition feeding devices...how did that happen?), and the hoplophobes and gun hating liberals will next demand universal firearms registration to make a universal background check effective, which will then lead to confiscations of registered firearms as they are made illegal feature by feature.

The problem with this Progressive piece of constitutional shredding is that we, the People, will neither tolerate nor obey such laws, which are on their face violations of our rights. They are unenforceable and will lead only to widespread disobedience and conflict and will merely reinforce distrust of the government and disrespect for its laws.

That's why such legislation will never endure.

So, to recap, it's perfectly legal to own any sort of "arms" suitable for use by the military other than "weapons of mass destruction" which are obviously a different category entirely (thus disposing of the typical Progressive "what about nukes" canard), if you can find one available on the civilian market and can afford to buy it. Like most Progressive/Marxist plots, this one doesn't stop people from getting arms, it merely disenfranchises the poor by making it too expensive for them to exercise their rights, thus enhancing class warfare tension.

The government controls access to military weapons (Stinger missiles, artillery rounds, tanks and suchlike) by enacting DOD policies that require that any government property that is purpose-built for war (like fighter jets and artillery) must be "demilitarized" before being sold to the public as scrap metal at DRMO auctions. Demilitarizing means to torch-cut, crush, melt or otherwise render the parts useless for the designed purpose prior to being removed from the government's possession.

Sometimes they screw up though. A guy I know bought 50 "demilled" 105mm recoilless rifles (Vietnam vintage) at an auction and discovered that five of them had been improperly cut, leaving the interrupted threads of the breech undamaged, allowing him to swap in undamaged breech blocks from other units to make five completely operable rifles, which he LEGALLY registered under the NFA and sold to private buyers.

Another fellow put together an F-104 Starfighter fighter jet for an attempt at the world record low-altitude speed run. He bought all the parts surplus at auction, and got the airframe, which had not been demilled (at the time it wasn't required...it is now) from the government and then rebuilt the jet from spare parts. The only thing he was lacking was a GE engine, and he had negotiated the purchase of one from General Electric when the DOD stepped in and threatened to cancel some contracts if they sold the guy the engine. GE cancelled the deal, but shortly later, the pilot received an anonymous donation of a brand-new GE jet engine from a benefactor.

He went on to set a new speed record.

Unfortunately, a year or two later the engine flamed out on takeoff and he had to eject, and the aircraft was destroyed in the crash.

But it goes to show you that the right to keep and bear arms (other than WMDs) has no legal upper limit, it has only practical limits imposed by government deliberately restricting access to surplus military equipment that might be rebuilt into operable NFA weapons.

And that's exactly how the Founders intended it. When the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, civilians owned all manner of arms, including artillery and armed merchant vessels, which were the "state of the art" at the time. The Constitution does not limit the advance of technology and does not constrain the right to only arms contemporary to the time of the Founders, it protects the right to keep and bear ALL arms, of whatever description or function.

Well that's reassuring. They're not being hypocritical after all; you just have to pay to play with the big toys.

[Gallstones]

I don't understand what difference it makes what arm one kills something with.
Handguns are not less "sporting" than a rifle (if that's the concern).
Handguns suitable for hunting large game are lighter and less cumbersome to tote than a rifle. One has to get closer, that should make them more "sporting".

To carry that out farther, there's no difference between shooting a paper target and a panda.

Paper targets aren't very nourishing and I don't think anyone is eating pandas.

[Seth]

Well that's reassuring. They're not being hypocritical after all; you just have to pay to play with the big toys.

That's right. The $200 tax was instituted in 1934, and at the time it was set so high that it was thought to discourage machine gun purchases, given that you could buy a Thompson machine gun at a hardware store for $200, when a Ford automobile sold for $400.

Today, with the value of machine guns at an all time high, and the price of SBRs in the thousands, the tax is no longer an impediment.

Interestingly, in all the decades since 1934, exactly ONE legally-owned and tax-stamped machine gun has been used by its legal owner to commit a crime: and that was a deputy sheriff who used his machine gun to kill his wife.

So, with hundreds of thousands of machine guns and SBRs (not to mention silencers and short shotguns) in circulation, and only ONE crime committed with any of them, what's the justification for banning the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use?

[orpheus]

Well that's reassuring. They're not being hypocritical after all; you just have to pay to play with the big toys.

That's right. The $200 tax was instituted in 1934, and at the time it was set so high that it was thought to discourage machine gun purchases, given that you could buy a Thompson machine gun at a hardware store for $200, when a Ford automobile sold for $400.

Today, with the value of machine guns at an all time high, and the price of SBRs in the thousands, the tax is no longer an impediment.

Interestingly, in all the decades since 1934, exactly ONE legally-owned and tax-stamped machine gun has been used by its legal owner to commit a crime: and that was a deputy sheriff who used his machine gun to kill his wife.

So, with hundreds of thousands of machine guns and SBRs (not to mention silencers and short shotguns) in circulation, and only ONE crime committed with any of them, what's the justification for banning the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use?

(bold mine)

Leaving aside the question of machine guns vs. other kinds of guns for the moment, let's come back to the issue of "law-abiding citizens". It's so easy to tell good guys from bad guys in your world, Seth. But presumably this deputy sheriff was a law-abiding citizen? Until he wasn't?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't understand what difference it makes what arm one kills something with.
Handguns are not less "sporting" than a rifle (if that's the concern).
Handguns suitable for hunting large game are lighter and less cumbersome to tote than a rifle. One has to get closer, that should make them more "sporting".

To carry that out farther, there's no difference between shooting a paper target and a panda.

Paper targets aren't very nourishing and I don't think anyone is eating pandas.

Mere detail.

But I wonder, what do you think of the "Big Ten" hunters?

[Seth]

Well that's reassuring. They're not being hypocritical after all; you just have to pay to play with the big toys.

That's right. The $200 tax was instituted in 1934, and at the time it was set so high that it was thought to discourage machine gun purchases, given that you could buy a Thompson machine gun at a hardware store for $200, when a Ford automobile sold for $400.

Today, with the value of machine guns at an all time high, and the price of SBRs in the thousands, the tax is no longer an impediment.

Interestingly, in all the decades since 1934, exactly ONE legally-owned and tax-stamped machine gun has been used by its legal owner to commit a crime: and that was a deputy sheriff who used his machine gun to kill his wife.

So, with hundreds of thousands of machine guns and SBRs (not to mention silencers and short shotguns) in circulation, and only ONE crime committed with any of them, what's the justification for banning the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use?

(bold mine)

Leaving aside the question of machine guns vs. other kinds of guns for the moment, let's come back to the issue of "law-abiding citizens". It's so easy to tell good guys from bad guys in your world, Seth. But presumably this deputy sheriff was a law-abiding citizen? Until he wasn't?

Yes, that's true. But if we operate society on the premise that everyone is a potential criminal (as MrJonno consistently argues) then there are a good many things that need attention before guns. The Soviet Union pretty much made that presumption, that everyone was guilty of something and therefore had to be watched carefully at all times by the central government. Thus the KGB and their massive file system. This leads to distrust of government, dissatisfaction, dissent, disorder and active antipathy towards the "spies" that encumber the ordinary person's freedom in the interests of "community safety." Nobody (well, almost nobody...MrJonno excluded) likes to live in a pervasively intrusive surveillance society or a nanny state that directs every aspect of life.

The very concept of ordered liberty is that we all trust one another enough to respect each other's rights to live life as we wish, so long as we don't harm others in the process. We don't exercise prior restraint when we let people drive cars, or run baths, or swim in pools, or own five gallon buckets, all of which kill many more children per year than guns do...and more adults too when it comes to cars. No, we allow them to violate the law first, and then we punish them. Using the hoplophobe paradigm, only the police and government officials would have automobiles because it's "too dangerous" to allow anyone to drive, on the premise that some of them MIGHT use their cars improperly and hurt others in the process. It should be perfectly obvious that such a rational is pure idiocy. And that's precisely the rationale that hoplophobes use to malign law-abiding gun owners, the vast, overwhelming majority of whom never do anything harmful or wrong with their firearms.

So in sum, your argument is just so much unthinking bilge. Yes, anyone can become a criminal, but so what? We don't treat people like criminals before they actually become criminals. We don't ban knives even though knives are frequently used by criminals. We don't ban gasoline or glass bottles even though the largest mass murder in US history was committed with gasoline in a glass bottle.

The solution, the ONLY solution to some random individual becoming a criminal and choosing to violently victimize innocent citizens is for those innocent citizens to be permitted to arm themselves with whatever weapons they think will best serve the purpose of keeping them safe from such victimization. Government can't and indeed has no obligation to protect the individual from any particular crime, the Supreme Court has pointed this out on several occasions. Therefore, the duty to defend onesself against criminal victimization is an individual duty that is the responsibility of each person, and therefore each person has the right to determine what tools he will have available to defend himself, and gets to decide what level of force to use in self-defense, being always personally responsible for knowing what the legal limits on the use of force in self defense are under varying circumstances and ultimately responsible for obeying such laws in any exercise of self defense.

There is no other way to prevent criminal victimization. None. The police are always only minutes (or hours) away when seconds, or fractions of seconds mean the difference between life and death for a crime victim.

So, law-abiding citizens must not be debarred the use of arms for self defense on the false and fallacious premise that they might use them wrongfully. We just have to wait till some particular individual does so, and then we all have to be prepared to react to that attack and thwart it as best we can. That's just how life is. It's not safe, nobody said it was safe, and there are no guarantees that you will live for another ten seconds.

Get used to it and adapt or die.

[orpheus]

So much wrong in that, Seth, I don't know where to begin.

[Kristie]

Arguing that government should disarm everyone BUT the criminals (for obvious reasons) is just plain idiocy and disrespect for the rights of individuals by reducing their lives to a bogus statistical argument.

It would be idiocy, if anyone had made that argument.
...but since nobody has, it is a strawman.

Fail.

Horseshit. All the hoplophobes and anti-gun zealots here have argued exactly that, BG being the foremost example.

Very few Americans actually want ALL guns banned. We just want them better regulated. Call me a hoplophobe if you want, and I'll stick with my decision that you're a paranoid gun nut.

What do you mean by "better regulated?" The devil's in the details, you see. What hoplophobes usually mean by "better regulated" is "regulated in a manner that records every single firearm and its location and owner and every transfer or movement of that firearms anywhere." That may sound like "reasonable regulation" to you, but to me it's a recipe for tyranny, because, as has been proven by the experiences of New Jersey, California, Australia, the UK and quite literally every other place where guns must be registered and people must get the permission of the government to acquire, store, use or transport them, that "reasonable" plan always leads to gun confiscations. Always.

That's why we "paranoid gun nuts" refuse to comply with such laws and fight them at every turn. We know what you are angling for in the long run. Your minions in government have blown your cover and have admitted their true agenda. Here's Hillary Clinton:

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed--the Republicans will not reinstate it--are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

I will also work to make sure that police departments get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns, because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80% of the guns used in gun crimes got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary , Apr 16, 2008

We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented. We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. (Note: This final statement is a bald-faced lie)
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008

I think it’s important to remember that the crime rate was driven down, & gun violence was driven down in the 1990s because of a combination of policies, like 100,000 police on the street and getting assault weapons off the street...(Note: this last assertion is a lie, and research by the federal government showed that the "assault weapons" ban had almost no effect whatever on crime or gun violence.)
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum , Jul 12, 2007

“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
Source: CNN.com , Jun 2, 2000

The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases, time enough for authorities to check out a buyer’s record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.(Note: No, it didn't "ban" any existing firearm, and no, "killing people" is not the "only purpose" for such arms)
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.126 , Sep 25, 1996

And then there's Diane Feinstein:

The consuming passion of Dianne Feinstein's tenure in the Senate has been gun control. It is a passion that has been burned into her over many years of personal experiences with the brutal consequences of firearms. "We now have something happening in the US that has never happened before," Feinstein says grimly. "That is, children killing children with guns. Over 13 a day." Feinstein has been relentless in the battle, presenting a constant challenge to the NRA--including legislation designed to prohibit the manufacture and possession of military-style assault weapons, the Gun-Free School Act, and provisions to ban the import of high-capacity ammunition magazines. She is currently involved in writing legislation that will establish licensing and record of sale requirements for gun ownership. Such legislation, she believes, is the eventual solution to ensure that guns are only in the hands of responsible citizens and out of the hands of children and criminals.
Source: Nine and Counting, by Catherine Whitney, p.138-139 , Jul 25, 2000

This is not an esoteric subject for me. My life experience is such that I have seen firsthand what guns have done. I've walked in on robberies. I became mayor of San Francisco as a result of assassination.

As a supervisor, I had no protection so I got a gun permit and learned to shoot at the Police Academy. When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90--day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties. At that time, I turned in my pistol. That pistol and 14 others were melted down and sculpted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II during a trip to Rome later that year. The point is, I know where guns work for protection, and I know where they don't. I've lived a life that has been impacted by weapons, so this is not an esoteric, academic exercise for me. Nor is it a political exercise. I come to this issue because of real life experience.
Source: Nine and Counting, by Catherine Whitney, p.140 , Jul 25, 2000

Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons. Feinstein said her plan is intended to keep handguns and semi-automatic firearms away from “criminals, people with mental disabilities, and children.”

Under her plan, applicants for gun licenses would have to pay $25 and go to one of 100,000 federally licensed firearms dealers or to a state-certified office. The dealer or state-approved official would then record tithe gun sale and licensing with the Treasury Department. Applicants would be required to submit a thumb print, a photograph, their name, birthplace and address, and sign a statement swearing that the information is accurate. They would also have to pass a written firearms test, akin to a driver’s test, that would pose questions about the safe handling of firearms and the owner’s legal responsibility. The licenses would be renewable every five years and could be revoked.
Source: Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers , Apr 14, 2000

If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.
Source: 60 Minutes, 1995

So yes, there is a clear and present danger to our rights posed by an organized and long-standing agenda on the part of Marxists, Progressives and other liberal to ban and confiscate firearms, and it's mendacious to suggest there is not.

Yeah, that's where the 'paranoid' part comes in.
Guns should be registered, every gun. Certain guns should be banned. No where in that did I say I want the government to take the legally obtained and legally registered weapons from responsible gun owners.