“Trump administration says machine guns aren’t protected by Second Amendment,” The Washington Times reported two weeks ago.
“Machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer Case argued in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Machine guns are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Instead, they are uniformly restricted, highly lethal and well suited to criminal purposes.”
No comment about how fun they are? Biased!
ReplyDeleteJohn G.
Well, if the govt says I don't need 1, I should probably have 10. I like how they use the term 'law abiding citizen'. I am one until you change the rules to where I don't agree. I foresee a machine gun in my near future.
ReplyDeleteYou thought that Trump was going to fuck with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 15th, 20th and 22nd amendments but somehow he was not going to touch the 2nd amendment?
ReplyDeleteHow quaint.
We have known forever that weapons are an insurance against tyrants. Trump is governing like a tyrant. He is disappearing people from the street. Imposing taxes based on his whims. Toying with the possibility of a 3rd term.
You may like some or all of his policies so far at some point that will change and that is when you lose the "right" to bear arms. No tyrant can afford to let the public own weapons.
Oh fuck you and that liberal bullshit you're spouting, troll. And yes you are a troll - this is the 3rd week in a row you've tried to post different versions of this comment. The only reason I'm posting this one is so you'll hopefully take a hint and go back to watching The View.
DeleteIt must be terrible to be suffering TDS to that extent.... Get well soon
DeleteJD
Spoken like a true leftist, comrade...
DeleteAnon@4:26 - you should've seen the one he tried to post last week. It was FOURTEEN paragraphs long! The funniest part of that one was where he said we no longer have a "Right" to retire because of Trump - I always knew we could plan for retirement, but I didn't know it was a civil Right.
DeleteNotice how trolls almost always post as "anonymous"....cowards.
Delete> “Machine guns are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
ReplyDeleteThat hasn't always been the case.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
“Machine guns are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
DeleteNot since 1934 anyway. Regulate the shit out of them, so they are expensive and difficult to obtain, then claim "not many people own them."
I wonder if all this is directed at over-regulating Glock Switches, then Glocks, then shoelaces...
Ironic that one of the very few times since they went NFA, a legally owned full auto used in a crime was used by a fucking blue line gestapo agent.
DeleteAny and all laws governing the laws regulating firearms are unconditional PERIOD...
ReplyDeleteJD
Winner winner chicken dinner!!!
DeleteThe right of the people to keep and bear arms (not muskets and 5-round mag rifles, but 'arms', meaning anything that can be used as a weapon, including machine guns, tanks, and nuclear bombs, are all 'arms'), SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!
Free men care not what tyrants write.
The tree is thirsty my brothers.
Any honest interpretation of the 2nd includes nuclear arms. I mean, it's right there in the term, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteMind you, I support amending the constitution to give the feds the authority to regulate and track the manufacture, possession, and use of nuclear arms. In part I support in to make it clear that right now, they DO NOT HAVE that authority by any reasonable reading of our current constitution. (And by extension, ALL current and future gun control "laws" are invalid.)
John G.
I've heard it argued that anyone with the resources to produce nuclear arms, could have done far more damage by other means. I'm not certain that I would support your ammendment.
DeleteGenerally speaking, rights are only possessed and exercised by individuals. In the context of a weapon, any individual weapon should be fully Constitutional, fully automatic or not. Crew served weapons cross over that threshold. A tank for instance and certainly a nuclear bomb that requires a nation state to develop and deliver. It is not really a difficult concept. I realize that several GPMG's are considered "crew served" by military doctrine, but they are still very easily used by an individual.
DeleteIn the historical record, Multi shot volley guns existed well before 1775 and mechanical machine guns such as the Chambers Repeating Flintlock existed at the end of the Eighteenth Century. The Framers knew all about them as well as grenades, brass knuckle knives, swivel guns, what have you. The relationship between the militia and the various levels of government was discussed in detail in the various Federalist Papers and there is the clear, unmistakable message throughout that no government should enjoy a firepower monopoly over the People's Militias.
Once again I find the Trump Administration engaged in doing things contrary to the best interests of Heritage Americans while the more pressing problems we sent them to Washington to correct are left undone.
“Machine guns are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
ReplyDeleteDad had 2. A Thompson 45 and Uzi 9mm of which I sold once I inherited them. At the time I could not afford the tax of owning a machine gun. The Thompson would eat through a 20 round magazine in less than 2 seconds so it was expensive to shoot. The Uzi was a doorway clearer. I could not keep all of the bullets on a man sized target 20 feet away with a full magazine. However I would like to have the option to go full auto on my AR.
don't feel bad about it. most people can't keep them on target.
Deleteused to help run ranges while I was in the army and most people have a hard time keeping full auto fire on target. that is WHY we teach them to fire short bursts of 3-5 rounds. it takes a lot of ammo to get "good" with full auto fire. unless it mounted on a tripod. even then people miss a LOT. spend more time shooting your AR and you find you don't really need full auto. dave in pa. and 1/503 PIR a long time ago
My Dad taught us how to shoot a Thompson when we were in Boy Scouts. He carried one WWII Philippines invasion. He sold News Papers as a kid in Central Station in NY and fenced in High School. Scrawny Italian kid who had the upper body strength from holding a paper at arms length for hours and quick react reflexes from fencing to control the recoil. Because of such skill he got to walk point in the Philippines jungle. He used the 50 round drum first and then went to 20 round sticks. After he survived the first week they gave him an ammo carrier of sorts that carried an additional 8 20 round mags. He had a Garand. Dad brought the Army literature home on how to spot Japanese booby traps. I read them and learned how to make Japanese booby traps. I loved Rambo doing this in the first movie against the Sheriffs department.
DeleteSpin
Shall not be infringed.....sounds fairly simple even to the unwashed masses (i.e. libs, commies, socialists, democrats...but I repeat myself)...if the Gubmint gets 'em, so do we....
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get the full auto option myself. I prefer long range and accuracy. Plus with the cost of ammo and components I couldn't afford it. However if that situation were to change, I would want the option to choose so.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on every bit of that.
DeleteYoutuber Brandon Herrera is a gun manufacturer and has a nice collection of automatic weapons, and he said automatics are either broken down or are in the process of breaking down.
I enjoy Brandon's YTube channel, enjoyable and lots of info
DeleteJD
Suppression, it's a thing. You're welcome.
DeleteYeah, automatics "are either broken down or in the process of breaking down" but they're still incredibly useful. Enough so that semiautomatics are relegated to specialist roles (sniping, for instance) or sidearms, in all modern militaries. Suppressive fire is a hell of a lot less effective with a semiautomatic. You can simulate full auto a few ways with semiauto firearms, but they're all suboptimal compared to the real thing. Saving ammo is well and good, but if select-fire made a firearm inherently significantly less accurate than the semiautomatic versions of the same firearms, then designated marksmen wouldn't carry accurized machine guns, they'd carry accurized semiautomatics. A generic select-fire M4 is just as accurate as an unmodified semiautomatic M4 clone from PSA. That's part of why they have the ability to select "safe" "semiautomatic" and "automatic" on the selector switch. When you need full auto, you really need full auto.
DeleteTotal BS. America has just won a war not a hunting trip.
ReplyDeleteTrump has always been NYC weak on guns. Who in their right mind thought attacking bump stocks was sane?
"Take guns first, get due process second."
DeleteThat is as direct a quote as you can get, even from a New York Democrat.
Lawyers speak a special kind of English: "shall not be infringed" means "unless we want to". (By the way, "shall" is a formal word in government-ese contracts. "should" is a highly preferred suggestion; "shall" is a "you will do this or else". Except when the govt decides otherwise. When you are directed with "shall", all heaven and hell will fall upon your head if you don't do "shall". You SHALL pay your voluntary taxes. You SHOULD (NOT) beat up that straight white guy. You SHALL (NOT) use the n-word in public if you are that straight white guy.
ReplyDelete5:42,
DeleteFrom Black's Law Dictionary:
...'shall' is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”)...Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,”..."
.
Synopsis:
The word 'shall' means pretty much anything anybody wants it to mean.
While Trump is way better than anyone on the left he's not perfect. His willful blindness to the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is a major flaw.
ReplyDeletethat's okay, we don't need machine guns. semi saves ammo anyway.
ReplyDeleteAGREED!!! Jeff C in NC
Delete(in a few years)
Delete"Yeah, we don't need center-fire cartridges, or the rifles that use them, black powder firearms are simpler to reload at home anyway, no need for primers!"
"Need" doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. God, I'm sick of that freaking word.
They are very well suited for a particular purpose, which is the whole reason for the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteThis dude gets it.
DeleteIt's fun when you can illegally restrict something for a few decades, then, now that that thing is less common, use the fact that it's less common to argue it was always perfectly legal to restrict it. "Common use" has always been absolute fucking bullshit.
ReplyDeleteIf Pam Bondi (the chick who tried to fuck over Zimmerman in Florida, in case anyone forgot) and her pals are going to spew this kinda shit, take away their bodyguards' automatic weapons. If the militia (which is every able-bodied male over 18 BTW) wouldn't be "expected to use" machine guns in defense of the nation and the people, why the fuck should politicians' bodyguards have them!?
We need full-auto now more than ever before due to the rise of FPV drones. Full auto and mag fed shotguns seem to work well against them. One of the only laws that matter anymore is the law of power, everything else is a legal fiction and a matter of opinion.
ReplyDelete-Arc
*wheezes in the dusty rubbish bin*
he 2nd is designed to protect us from the government. Who gives a shit what they "believe" about it? I don't. They're scared of us and that amuses me.
ReplyDeleteSomething's gotta be done about this travesty. Next thing you know they'll be banning cruise missiles.
ReplyDeleteThey told us that sawed-off shotguns and "silencers" were verboten because they weren't typically in military use. I seem to remember a lot of machineguns when I was in the army.
ReplyDelete"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...
ReplyDelete"they are uniformly restricted, highly lethal and well suited to criminal purposes.”
ReplyDeleteAnd that, my friends, in a nutshell, is why government wants to keep them in their hands and out of ours.
I've read the Constitution; the 2nd amendment says nothing about specific types of firearms.
But it does specify certain types of government.
CC
#47 has recently floated the idea of suspending habeas corpus. There are no coincidences. As the months tick by and Epstein list, Fort Knox, governor/mayors of sanctuary states and cities, J6 star chamber, etc remain untouched and free; the agenda becomes murky. IMO.
ReplyDeleteSo a quick question, did the NFA amend the Constitution? I think not
ReplyDeleteFuck the DOJ. They don't enforce the Constitution, they don't obey the Constitution. They are the Enemies Domestic referenced in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIt has been reduced to a privilege since 1934, and was eliminated as a new privilege in 1986. Prior to the NFA civilian weapons were more advanced than military weapons. You could buy a Thompson over the counter and the standard issue shoulder arm was the most 1903 Springfield rifle. This is just about in.lineveoth how the founding fathers viewed the second amendment in practice.
ReplyDelete