Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you really that ignorant? Or are you just pointing out that "fully automatic machine gun" is redundant?
No, it's not redundant. Early machineguns, e.g. Gatlings and Gardners, are not automatic. They require that the operator continue to supply muscle to the trigger or crank. Some Gatlings made in the eighteen-nineties had electric motors mounted. These are considered automatic. The non-automatics are not subject to NFA rules. In fact, the originals made before 1899 are legally antiques, not subject to any federal law. I once was able to shoot a late Gatling chambered in .30-40. It was exhilirating to say the least.
Others may insist they need more firepower, but all I need are a 9mm, a 12-gauge shotgun and a .308.
Personal protection, home defense, and dropping fast food from a distance. I can get everything I need to get done with these three easily-obtained weapons.
Unfortunately my present locale makes this less easy, however.
Most people will agree that private civilian ownership of active nuclear missile launchers is absurd, but what about rocket launchers, land mines, flamethrowers, artillery cannon, hand grenades, etc....
Many gun rights advocates would argue that civilians should be able to own the weapons which are adequetly designed for personal defense against an individual agressor or small band of aggressors...ie)shotguns, handguns, semi-auto rifles, etc. Yet, many of the same advocates argue that full automatic machineguns should remain legal (they are legal in several states)although they are designed primarilly for battlefield usage and are more or less "excessive" for home/personal defense usage.
So where should the line of legal ownership be drawn? If machine guns are legal, why not other battlefield weapons such as rocket launchers or flamethrowers?
Does it matter we have so many legal and illegal weapons the federal and state governments don't even know about. Most of them never see the light of day and sit in someone's bunker and that is the point.
We have them in case we need them and if the government can have them so shall we because in the end we don't trust government to always stay true to liberty.
Now, I haven't seen a recruiting office for the Militia for a long, long time, so I think understanding the use of the term Militia is crucial to understanding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
...all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard
So there's no recruiting office because if you're aged between 17 and 45 male, and not excepted you're already in the Militia. You're also in the Militia if you're in the National Guard and female.
In AK anyone who is 17 or older, and eligible for military service is also part of the AK militia (AS 26.05.010).
Which is why I often find it amusing that many people use the "Militia" argument as to why "civilians" shouldn't own firearms. Since according to the Law it would only exclude those under 17, over 45 (or over 64 for veterans), or excepted and women who are not in the National Guard. Actually if you used strict definition on the 2nd and the Militia clause, then since felons are not excluded from the Militia, then they should have 2nd Amendment rights too. Fortunately the Militia section is a preamble, and the 2nd has been confirmed as an individual right.
Gun with non violent felons I think once they did there time they should have All Rights back. Evidently doing the time is not the end of the punishments.
But then I think the violent offenders should be locked up for life with no chance of paroll. That doesn't have to be murder either.
Gun with non violent felons I think once they did there time they should have All Rights back. Evidently doing the time is not the end of the punishments.
But then I think the violent offenders should be locked up for life with no chance of paroll. That doesn't have to be murder either.
I'm not stating a position of felons, just stating what the Militia is, and how if a strict definition of the "militia" clause was applied, it would enable felons to own firearms under the 2nd Amendment. Many people who yell the 2nd applies to the militia don't know exactly what it is that they're really asking for, I was intending to educate any who were not aware...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or are you just pointing out that "fully automatic machine gun" is redundant?
