testtest

DOJ Says Machineguns Not Protected by 2nd Amendment and Silence of Gun Groups is Deafening

Shibadog said:
Like all those “fully semi automatics” I guess..
Click to expand...
My question is what law abiding civilian has an actual need for a fully automatic firearm?
Do they understand the kind of carnage these types of weapons can quickly inflict on people?
Maybe it’s because I have seen what these weapons can do is why I don’t see the need for them to be available to all.
I have used automatic weapons in combat. From the M249 SAW all the way up to the 25mm Bushmaster automatic chain gun. It gets nasty really quick.
 
Warrior9(Ret) said:
My question is what law abiding civilian has an actual need for a fully automatic firearm?
Do they understand the kind of carnage these types of weapons can quickly inflict on people?
Maybe it’s because I have seen what these weapons can do is why I don’t see the need for them to be available to all.
I have used automatic weapons in combat. From the M249 SAW all the way up to the 25mm Bushmaster automatic chain gun. It gets nasty really quick.
Click to expand...
:mad:
 
The comment that influential voices in the 2A don’t want to get on Trump’s bad side is telling. As @HansGruber said, this administration had paid lip service to the 2nd Ammendment. Trump is as likely to turn on the 2A community as he is to support it and as we’ve seen woe betide anyone who disagrees with him.
 
Warrior9(Ret) said:
My question is what law abiding civilian has an actual need for a fully automatic firearm?
Do they understand the kind of carnage these types of weapons can quickly inflict on people?
Maybe it’s because I have seen what these weapons can do is why I don’t see the need for them to be available to all.
I have used automatic weapons in combat. From the M249 SAW all the way up to the 25mm Bushmaster automatic chain gun. It gets nasty really quick.
Click to expand...

I've used them too. In normal times I don't have a use for them and see them as merely a waste of expensive ammo. In normal times. That is NOT the point of the 2A. If our government has it, we can have it, THAT is the point of the 2A.

People trying to modify the 2A to suit their opinions about what is necessary or their opinions about who needs what ( all of which is irrelevant to MY constitutional rights) is exactly how we ended up with the GCA of 1938, the NFA, the Clinton AWB and every other government overreach of law abiding citizens 2A rights.

Examples of the MOST carnage on American soil were, A) committed by the government with repeating rifles or B) committed with something other than firearms. Like airplanes.

The 1st amendment kills more people than the 2nd. ;)
 
Bassbob said:
I've used them too. In normal times I don't have a use for them and see them as merely a waste of expensive ammo. In normal times. That is NOT the point of the 2A. If our government has it, we can have it, THAT is the point of the 2A.

People trying to modify the 2A to suit their opinions about what is necessary or their opinions about who needs what ( all of which is irrelevant to MY constitutional rights) is exactly how we ended up with the GCA of 1938, the NFA, the Clinton AWB and every other government overreach of law abiding citizens 2A rights.

Examples of the MOST carnage on American soil were, A) committed by the government with repeating rifles or B) committed with something other than firearms. Like airplanes.

The 1st amendment kills more people than the 2nd. ;)
Click to expand...
I fully understand your point. I meant that fully automatic weapons should not be available to all. Just as the current laws are now. If you’ve been convicted of a violent crime involving the use of a firearm or you’re not mentally competent then you shouldn’t be allowed to have any.
I personally don’t see the need for them unless you’re in the military or law enforcement.
 
"Machine guns are atypical weapons not protected by the Second Amendment because a reasonable person would not expect them to be used in militia service,..."

I find this statement nonsensical. Why would it be unreasonable? I remember a quote from my favorite political satirist from long ago, P.J. O'Rourke: "At the time the constitution was written all rifles were assault rifles."

I had another thought. On a different level could this be another battle of Trump vs. the Judges? A win on either side could be used against the other in a big picture sense.
 
Cedric said:
"Machine guns are atypical weapons not protected by the Second Amendment because a reasonable person would not expect them to be used in militia service,..."

I find this statement nonsensical. Why would it be unreasonable? I remember a quote from my favorite political satirist from long ago, P.J. O'Rourke: "At the time the constitution was written all rifles were assault rifles."

I had another thought. On a different level could this be another battle of Trump vs. the Judges? A win on either side could be used against the other in a big picture sense.
Click to expand...
Could be. Time will tell. It’s still early in this administration’s adventure. I think it needs to be addressed before midterms
 
Warrior9(Ret) said:
I fully understand your point. I meant that fully automatic weapons should not be available to all. Just as the current laws are now. If you’ve been convicted of a violent crime involving the use of a firearm or you’re not mentally competent then you shouldn’t be allowed to have any.
I personally don’t see the need for them unless you’re in the military or law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Violent criminals, mentally incompetent ( and others) are already banned from possessing firearms of any kind ( which this is a whole other conversation we could be having since the constitution does not give the government the right to decide who is mentally competent or give them an avenue to remove a citizen from their constitutional rights) so what is the point of singling out MG ? The only thing the current MG laws have achieved is making it prohibitively expensive for most people to own one.

While I agree that the only real use for full auto is cover fire, typically in a combat situation, there are a great number of MGs I would like to have in my collection. But I can't. Because I can't justify a mortgage to own a rifle.
 
I personally would like to see that law from them being imported gone, would it kill the value of mine, yep. but i don't care. there a couple more i'd like to have but no way am i paying what they want for them.
 
Bassbob said:
Violent criminals, mentally incompetent ( and others) are already banned from possessing firearms of any kind ( which this is a whole other conversation we could be having since the constitution does not give the government the right to decide who is mentally competent or give them an avenue to remove a citizen from their constitutional rights) so what is the point of singling out MG ? The only thing the current MG laws have achieved is making it prohibitively expensive for most people to own one.

While I agree that the only real use for full auto is cover fire, typically in a combat situation, there are a great number of MGs I would like to have in my collection. But I can't. Because I can't justify a mortgage to own a rifle.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with people owning them. I just don’t see the need for them. I don’t want one. I’ve had my fill of them. This is my personal preference.
 
Warrior9(Ret) said:
I don’t have a problem with people owning them. I just don’t see the need for them. I don’t want one. I’ve had my fill of them. This is my personal preference.
Click to expand...
That's different than "No civilian needs one" though isn't it ? I personally don't have a use for forced reset triggers, binary triggers or bump stocks. Or 80% pistol frames. I don't want them made illegal though.
 
HansGruber said:
The fact that any of you are surprised by this is really kinda amazing.

This administration is not Pro2A; never has been, never will be. Sure, they might toss out a few crumbs from time to time…but substantial change? Not happening.

You got suckered, big time.
Click to expand...
And remember the bump stock ban, so to think that just because they label themselves Republicans means they are Pro2A is simply foolish.
 
Bassbob said:
Okay, not to be argumentative, rather to just further the conversation a bit, let me ask you this. You don't see the need for them, but do you not see a time in a possible future where there may be a need for them ?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the apocalypse or an armed invasion from a foreign nation? Then Yes. I’ll leave it at that
 
Warrior9(Ret) said:
Are you referring to the apocalypse or an armed invasion from a foreign nation? Then Yes. I’ll leave it at that
Click to expand...
Civil war maybe ? Your neighborhood gets caught up in a race riot. I mean this place has more than one person who is preparing for a zombie apocalypse so in perspective a civil war or our own government mobilizing against us is far more likely than a zombie apocalypse, no ?
 
Bassbob said:
Civil war maybe ? Your neighborhood gets caught up in a race riot. I mean this place has more than one person who is preparing for a zombie apocalypse so in perspective a civil war or our own government mobilizing against us is far more likely than a zombie apocalypse, no ?
Click to expand...
All of above. Yes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top