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.
The intent of the 2A is a citizen force having capable arms to field in defense of community, self, and, if needs be, country. Heavy fire power, artillery, and such, is not practical for militia. Nuclear weapons and such...please. Lets be real. Militia, by definition, are not even capable of maintaining and operating modern air power and missile weapons, let alone fielding them. Militia are a small to medium weapons group. Therefore, I draw the line at readily available weaponry there.
The average citizen is constrained by budget. Rifles, handguns, shotguns are the bulk of private weapons. Some folks can afford heavy stuff like a 50,and there are a few who can afford title 3 stuff. The lines are drawn pretty well where they need to be.
I actually don't know anyone, personally, who advocates that weapons, such as you describe, be available at Big 5. The notion is silly. However, service style small arms, ala AR 15, are perfectly reasonable firearms for civilian use.
All of the items you listed are considered Destructive Devices by the BATFE and are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Right here on the ATF site - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nat...et-attachments All you need to do is follow the procedure (in my opinion, an unconstitutional procedure) to get your tax stamp.
Which begs the question...
If the government does not believe these things protected under the 2nd Amendment, what part of the constitution do the believe they are protected under...?
Because if they're not protected why are they still permissible to own.
If the government does not believe these things protected under the 2nd Amendment, what part of the constitution do the believe they are protected under...?
Because if they're not protected why are they still permissible to own.
I think the .gov is wrong. There should not be a single federal firearm law. It's like the federal murder law. There is none. We leave it to the states. It should be that way.
That said, do I violate these NFA laws I don't agree with? No I don't. It's not worth it. I don't have the time or money to fight this right now.
I think the .gov is wrong. There should not be a single federal firearm law. It's like the federal murder law. There is none. We leave it to the states. It should be that way.
That said, do I violate these NFA laws I don't agree with? No I don't. It's not worth it. I don't have the time or money to fight this right now.
Consider, we're discussing what we should be able to own...
The government says,
"pay $200 tax and fill in a form and you can own and register your <named heavy weapon here>"
So if the government permits people to own pretty much any heavy weapon, why do they permit it if their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment only applies to small arms?
Logically they wouldn't, therefore the only alternative is that the government does believe that these are protected under the 2nd Amendment (because there is no other clause in the constitution that could be applicable). Thus by inference we know what is protected by the second amendment, and it's not only small arms, but anything that is covered under the NFA regulations too.
So a Mk-84 2000lb low drag HE bomb, can be obtained as a destructive device, if you owned a suitable aircraft (F-16, F-15(E), F/A-18, A-6, A-10, F-117, B-52, B-1B, B-2 etc.) IIRC there's a place in Arizona that sell them (not sure if functional, but airworthy with work), Israel tried to sell off 77 F-16's back in 2006, and there are Russian Mig's and Sukhoi's in private collections. I'm pretty sure if you offered them $10M+ you'd probably get one to take away. Then with the correct rails then you could fit that aircraft with that DD. While $200 per bomb seems extreme, when you consider the operational costs of an F-16 is around $12,000 to $18,000 per hour (around $5,000 in fuel per hour alone) $200 per bomb is chickenfeed.
Should they be allowed to own a fully operational tank, surface to air missile, nuclear weapon, nerve gas, automatic machine gun, grenade, bazooka, grenade launcher, combat jet with operational weaponry?
Unless these "citizens" are launching their own private wars against God knows who, the short answer is....hell, no.
That's a $200 dollar tax, extended background check and sign-off from your highest elected law enforcement officer (sheriff). What does a an Mk-84 cost? Where would you buy it?
Is the risk worth the cost? One of my former co-workers loaded bombs at Barksdale AFB as part of his Air Force Reserve duties. We asked how he dealt with the pressure. He said "Not a big deal. If you made a mistake, you would never know. You just disappear."
As far as fighter jets go, I think Larry Ellison (founder and CEO of Oracle) has a MIG.
That's a $200 dollar tax, extended background check and sign-off from your highest elected law enforcement officer (sheriff). What does a an Mk-84 cost? Where would you buy it?
Not if you use a trust...
Fill in the forms (form 1 form 4, whatever) and submit them to BATFE. No Fingerprints, no CLEO sign off, if the items contradict your local laws, then you will be denied, but other than that it streamlines the process.
I forgot about the trust. But I doubt that rule will last as the BATFE has been taking comments concerning the rule change.
I also don't like the fact that I have to file paperwork to carry an NFA item across state lines. I live a few miles from TN and have land in AR where I shoot. I may decide on a Saturday morning to go shoot but I would have to leave my NFA items behind. I don't know if the approval backlog has impacted the transport paperwork. I know a lot of guys at ARFCOM are waiting 1 year + for suppressor and SBR approvals.
Let's get some facts straight.
American people have RIGHTS.
But
American citizens do not.
Civics 101:
Citizens have surrendered rights in exchange for civil and political liberty, which include being obligated to perform MANDATORY duties.
• The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc."
• In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
NOTE: Militia duty is only mandatory on all male citizens (17-45), since 1777.
Being obligated to train, fight, and die, on command, is a violation of one's right to life and liberty - unless consent was given... BY ASSERTING CITIZENSHIP ... a voluntary act.
If citizenship was imposed at birth, it would impose involuntary servitude, violate the Declaration of Independence, and violate the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
....
American nationals / non-citizens are not obligated to perform duties, hence they retain their rights, powers, and individual sovereignty. (There is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen." That's an oxymoron.)
Do not believe me - go read the law yourself, available in any county courthouse law library.
Write to the State department and ask about the procedure for an American national / noncitizen to receive a U.S. passport.
Is the risk worth the cost? One of my former co-workers loaded bombs at Barksdale AFB as part of his Air Force Reserve duties. We asked how he dealt with the pressure. He said "Not a big deal. If you made a mistake, you would never know. You just disappear."
Probably not, but that's not the point, the point is that you can own these things, legally and the government does not prohibit it (it may give hoops to jump through, but that's not prohibition, sure we can quibble about regulation, but it's still not prohibition). Therefore as I said by inference these things must be protected by something, and the only something I can come up with that has any relevance is the 2nd Amendment.
Moreover if you can own a Mk-84 (with or without the Paveway III, or JDAM kits which bolt on to the Mk-84), then it clearly means you can pretty much guarantee that all conventional munitions have similar non-prohibitions.
Now on to platforms, you can own tanks, humvees, trucks, APC's, you can own aircraft, you can own ships, all you'd need is to fit the platform with the system that can fire/launch/drop the munition. So if you bought a decommed M1-A1 you could replace the main gun with one from Rheinmetall, nothing stopping you, the commanders M2 and 7.62 Co-Ax will be more difficult because they're 1986 Hughes victims, but the 120mm smooth bore is just a large bore gun. Dunno whether you'd get DU APFSDS because of possible environmental hazards, but it's still going to be a working tank, with a gun, and ammunition if you have the money.
None of it is cheap however and therefore for the vast majority of people the only familiarity they have with the 2nd Amendment is firearms.
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.
