Actually they are not banned. Congress knew in 1934 that it had zero power to ban any arms, especially those that were of the type that constituted the ordinary military equipment.

The widely interpreted power to tax afforded a wider range of powers to restrict possession of full auto machine guns, sawed-off shotguns etc by requiring a Treasury tax stamp to be affixed to the weapon to prove a transfer tax had been paid. Hundreds of thousands of Title II arms are in private hands that run the gamut from little 9mm sub-machine guns to 20mm Vulcan MiniGuns.

I've read legal arguments on both sides; I haven't read a compelling one that argues for banning.

Emotional arguments are everywhere one turns but are rarely of any value when discussing important issues especially issues of legally enforced public policy. That goes triple when the policy being advocated demands either the ignoring or purposeful violation of fundamental, constitutionally enforced rights.

Why does someone need to have a Vulcan mini gun??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it just shows the absurdity of the entire argument. Yes, you can get a full auto weapon with the proper permitting and background checks, but the process has made them so expensive, difficult to get and worse -- traceable -- they rarely if ever are actually used in crimes.

I'd think it's a safe wager that if I was a violent criminal I'd much rather have some serious firepower at my disposal. Why aren't they used more? Perhaps because they are so hard to get.

-spence

Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?

And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How else would you be able to defend against invading Vulcans? Oh, that's right, the Vulcans were pacifistic and wouldn't invade. Besides, they liked humans. Ok, so Reelin Rod may have to answer the question.

For the same reason guys need long distance fishing rods, fast retrieve reels, wetsuits for fishing or skishing, big boats, glass fish, etc. Cause they are cool, fun to play with and we can.
You are not trying to tell us it makes economic sense or is always socially acceptable to go fishing are you?

So lets be clear. People do not need weapons like this. They WANT THEM. There's a difference you know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Weapons like what, a Minigun, semi-auto rifle, pistol, shotgun?

I'm not rationalizing anything.

I reject the entire "need" discussion out of hand (except for the aforementioned requirement of government to explain the premise constitutional support for any power claimed to impact the personal arms of the private citizen).

yes, I thought questioning someone's "wants and needs" had become passe' and even frowned upon.....

There's a good argument that a poor person actually needs a smart phone so that they have Internet access for looking for jobs, unemployment forms, etc. they can then not need a land line or a real computer.

I'm almost poor and that's what I have done at home.. No landline or hard wired Internet :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But that's for another thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Library!!!!!! We pay for it, they can go there and use it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We spend billions on libraries . They have Internet access. Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A little history might help
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[79][80] Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[80][81] George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[80][82]
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[80][83]
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84]

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[80][85]
By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[86]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder how people ever got jobs before the internet and smart phones???? :)

Thanks for the history, I hadn't hear about the part with the king and all.

By this line of reasoning today then the general public should have unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry. I mean, if the real intent is to be able to repel the government, you're going to need a lot more firepower than an AR-15 with an extended magazine and folding stock.

-spence

Not if the law abider decides commit a crime :)

The point was that restricting access can indeed have a big impact on how those weapons are used, even without banning them.

The needs for sporting purposes are fairly narrow and can be met easily under current law. The needs for defense of liberty are quite broad and aren't likely to be met under current law...or are they?

Perhaps the defenders of freedom are already quite well armed.

-spence

Thanks for reminding me I could use a new oyster knife. I hate opening the things to be honest. The local stuff we get makes for good eating but the shells are a PITA.

-spence

I've noticed :)

Wow, what a zinger. :spam:

-spence

I'm just waiting for the next Million Man March..........................
I don't think our choice will be to burn down our neighborhoods.

I prefer they just charge up $6 lattes on their EBT cards at the Internet cafe like most other poor people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They checked the newspaper. Then technology came along and well.. You know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they can still check the newspaper....the point that you started was about wants and needs...you don't "need" a smart phone to find a job, particularly if many aspects of your life(housing, food, electric, school meals, healthcare, childcare ...etc...etc...) are already being subsidized or provided by the government....having a car might get you to a job as well, but if you can't afford the basics in life you should walk, ride a bike or take public transportation (can't believe I have to explain this)........you don't "need" a 6 dollar latte at an internet cafe, you use your EBT card to purchase that latte because you feel that you are entitled to a latte at someone else's expense or you've just become so accustomed to living at someone else's expense that it doesn't even occur to you that someone else is paying for your latte...might a smart phone provide you access to employment information?.....sure...but based on that argument we can justify/construe all sorts of wants as needs while forgetting priorities simply because the wants in lieu of needs will make our lives a little easier....which is very much a reason why we are where we are....:) on the other hand, you may not need many of these weapons mentioned(or maybe you might at some point) but if you can pay for them and can meet the guidelines for ownership, you are entitled to them under the Constitution(at least for now)....not sure smartphones and lattes were mentioned in the Constitution...probably just behind the times....

listening to the radio in the car last night I heard a very salient point made that while simple, explained an awful lot...."we cant even agree on right and wrong in this country anymore"

It was a Joke Scott...Geesh :rolleyes:

I got it....but it is symptomatic...wouldn't you say?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/p...nvj2RwpsEDS7MN
metaphor for steak and lobster at the checkout line at Market Basket courtesy of EBT ....I'd refer back to the better living through foodstamps commercials that the government was targeting various groups with and the explosion of foodstamp recipients...it's prevalent right through the income stratus but breeding dependency begins with the most likely dependent(s)....good humor is always reality based :uhuh: but the reality of that joke isn't so funny really ...I'd argue that the growth of the entitlement culture and bureaucracy and dissolving of our social framework coupled with the inability to distinguish between right and wrong, needs and wants, rights and entitlements will have a much more significant impact on our future than the argument over which guns and ammo to ban....but the argument for the next few months will be about guns apparently...priorities:)