some of the BIGGEST proponents of keeping that law are the people that already own FA weapons... lest the value of what they already own goes down, kinda like "I got mine, screw you!"
Posted on 08/21/2017 10:15:19 PM PDT by Perseverando
He said those winters - wow
I’m in the same situation my FRiend.
I sure wish I could have at least short visits with them :-)
With my Mom, it sometimes seems like I can feel her presence.
Someone named “PreciousLiberty” should have a little more concern for the right to keep and bear arms ...
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you find difficult to understand?
“Someone named “PreciousLiberty” should have a little more concern for the right to keep and bear arms ...”
I have plenty of concern for the 2nd Amendment...
“What part of “shall not be infringed” do you find difficult to understand?”
Like other Constitutional rights, the right to “keep and bear arms” is not unconditional. One example is that the right to free speech doesn’t allow someone to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. It’s simply a matter of deciding where to draw the line, doing the most good and the least harm. Or is it that you support private citizens owning mortars, howitzers, rocket launchers, warplanes and nuclear weapons...?
Since the primary utility of automatic weapons is mowing down a crowd or forcing adversaries to keep their head down (see my earlier post), I don’t see a need for them to be readily available. If things transition to a civil war, folks with currently legal weapons will be able to relatively easily acquire anything the other side is using.
Personally, I’d rather not see Larry Brin (or whoever happens to be your least favorite leftist) with his own personal missile silos...
“$200 tax means nothing now that it’s illegal to own one made after 1986.
Prices of old used transferrable MGs are >20x what new would be if not for 922(o).”
I’d forgotten this little detail... Interesting!
That again ...
I'd say you have a positive OBLIGATION to yell "Fire" (and pull the fire alarm) in a crowded theatre if there actually is a fire.
Or is it that you support private citizens owning mortars, howitzers, rocket launchers, warplanes and nuclear weapons...?
That again ...
The simple answer is "yes".
Since the primary utility of automatic weapons is mowing down a crowd or forcing adversaries to keep their head down (see my earlier post),
And your point is ...
You fail to understand that the Second Amendment isn't about target shooting, or hunting, or personal self defense. It's explicitly ("security of a FREE state") about KILLING TYRANTS. Keeping and bearing military weapons is absolutely protected by 2A.
‘That again ...
I’d say you have a positive OBLIGATION to yell “Fire” (and pull the fire alarm) in a crowded theatre if there actually is a fire.’
But of course the point is that virtually no one (crucially including the Supreme Court) supports allowing yelling it in a fireless theater. The harm of allowing that would greatly outweigh the good. Thus, there is a legal limit on free speech. A similar approach applies to “arms”.
As to your desire for private citizens to own any weapon whatsoever with no restrictions, I’ll have to respectfully disagree... :-)
And that is why we do not discharge them recklessly in public. Has nothing to do with "keeping and bearing" them.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree
You can disagree with the Constitution if you like ... lots of liberty-hating leftists do. Expect a fight if you try to change it or subvert it.
Loose lips sink ships.
“As to your desire for private citizens to own any weapon whatsoever with no restrictions, I’ll have to respectfully disagree... :-)”
When the 2nd was written private citizens could legally buy and outfit a battleship (of the time).
When the Constitution was ratified most of the warships and cannon were privately owned.
I know a man who owns 5. One of them he fires a few times every Sunday morning. On the 4th of July he breaks out his belt feds. He’s got a gorgeous 1919 Browning air cooled that’s a hoot to shoot.
L
some of the BIGGEST proponents of keeping that law are the people that already own FA weapons... lest the value of what they already own goes down, kinda like "I got mine, screw you!"
AFAIK that’s _not_ the case. I’ve heard many FA owners state they’re for full & immediate repeal, even though they appreciate the investment opportunities; never heard of one actually oppose repeal with any form of “got mine, screw you”.
The only value of “got mine” at this point is investment. Actually using one risks damage/destruction, to wit catastrophic loss of investment. One antique M16 vs 25 modern machineguns (M16, M4, P90, HK7, etc) for the same price? latter is much more fun.
the loss of investment was my point... if you have $50k to $XXX tied up, you damn well don't want to see it lose 2/3 it's value
If Trump wanted to, he could circumvent 922(o) tomorrow and you could get a new MG at semi-auto prices plus mere $200 tax.
yup, and there shouldn’t even BE a federal tax...
There would be more than a few “investors” that would scream bloody murder if 922 were repealed.
Name one.
I’ve known several who would gladly trade investment value for rights restoration.
I would trade investment value for rights restoration too, but I don’t have a good portion of my retirement invested in automatic weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.