State trooper pleads guilty to possessing machine gun

Belleville News-Democrat ^ | Jul. 26, 2006 | ASHLEY TUSAN JOYNER

[Dog Gone]

WMDs were raised only to point out "arms" that most people would agree should not be in private hands. We surely didn't want them in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Now, perhaps you disagree, and there are no limits whatsover as to what you have the right to possess. If so, there is no gray area to worry about. But if there ARE some arms that no citizen should possess, then we have to figure out where that dividing line is.

That's why I raised it.

[Dog Gone]

The reason that most gangbangers don't carry them is that they are hard to conceal (even the ones with folding/collapsible stocks and short barrels) even in the fashion of de dium (baggy clothes) and if they manage to conceal them the guns are hard to pull out in a pinch. That is why the true gun of choice is the handgun... easy to conceal and to pull out.

That makes some sense. But I still point to Nuevo Laredo where automatic weapons are being used extensively by the gangs there. So there's another factor in play.

[Dog Gone]

I have nowhere on this thread said that machine guns should be banned. I said restricted. If you're comfortable with the Goth kid down the street having a machine gun, you're more laid back than me.

[tcostell]

Yeah... I think it's reasonable to want to place some restrictions on explosives like RPG's or Mortars, but I still think it should be possible to get them if you really want to. (In other words, while I may be uncomfortable about it in practice, I still think it should be possible in theory.)

Many people think that the second amendment was supposed to provide private citizens with enough firepower to beat back the military, and now that they nuke could us from space, the whole thing is obsolete, but that's not so.

It's really about ensuring good government by keeping the threat of force in the hands of the people. That threat of force makes the need for "actual" force more or less moot. Besides, there isn't a tyrant in the world that can't be taken down with 1 carefully placed .308 bullet, and when you are in a country where 90 million people have the means to bump you off if they really wanted to, it makes you walk the straight and narrow.

There will never be a Hitler here...at least not until after they disarm us....

And THAT is what the 2nd amendment is really about.

[Dog Gone]

There are limits on your rights, tpaine. You don't have the right to drive as fast as you want anywhere that you want anytime that you want. If that infringes on your liberty, tough.

[Dog Gone]

I concur with that for the most part. We've always been a gun culture and I assume we always will be one. It's cost us four Presidents, and nearly several more, but an unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of the government.

I'm not sure that the citizens of this country would be any match against our military, even armed with machine guns. But that scenario will never occur. The power of public sentiment forces the government to adopt new policies, even if it's a slower pace than we'd sometimes like. I have my guns for hunting, self-defense, and in the case of my mini-14, just for fun. I like the banana clip and making a lot of noise.

I don't own it in anticipation of needing to overthrow the government by shooting a lot of people.

[tcostell]

No one does... that's my point... it's not necessary. The fact of the matter is, "consent of the governed" means a whole lot more when the "governed" are armed and still have a choice in the matter. That's the point.... the choice. No one thinks a bunch of civilians with Deer rifles is standing up to the US Army, and they don't have to BECAUSE they can.

Think of it this way... you and I are decided who is going to make the rules of a game. You want the rules to be tyrannically stacked in your favor, and I want them more even. I take a loaded gun and put it to your head. If you believe that I would use it, you will change your mind about whatever tyranny you were planning and be more reasonable. I don't have to actually commit an act of violence, I only have to have the capacity for it, and all of a sudden you become awfully reasonable.

That's what it was about. It turns a Hitler, (mad with power, looking upon citizens as subjects) into someone like Hillary Clinton. Still mad with power, and thinking of the people like subjects, but without the absolute authority to do anything about it.

The propensity for violence makes it's practice irrelevant.

[looscnnn]

"Sanity is easy, do you think big government is a good thing? Yes? then you are disqualified."

Then Dems get control and add Are you a Christian? Yes? then you are disqualified. Are you a Conservative? Yes? then you are disqualified and so on.

[tpaine]

Dog gone contends:

There are no absolute rights in the Constitution

Our absolute & inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property are twice mentioned. No person shall be deprived of them without due process of law.

because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme.

Thus due process of [constitutional] law is used to resolve the conflicts.

Lawyers like Dog Gone claim that gov't can prohibit you from owning 'dangerous' property ['machine guns'] in order to protect your own 'life & liberty'; -- a ludicrous concept of circular reasoning.

There are limits on your rights, tpaine.

There are limits on your power to write 'laws' that deprive me of due process, dog.

You don't have the right to drive as fast as you want anywhere that you want anytime that you want.

Silly comparison, dog. Laws against reckless driving are reasonable. -- 'Laws' against owning a machine gun are infringements of due process.

AS Justice Harlan recognized:
     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .

If that infringes on your liberty, tough.

Strange attitude.. -- Aren't you pledged, as a officer of the court, to protect & defend our constitutional liberties?

[looscnnn]

I asked that to find out whom he/she thinks should decide that.

[looscnnn]

You base it on a city in another country. A country that the criminals are in charge of and the cops are just as corrupt.

I will use the example of Switzerland, the citizens have full autos and there are none of the issues because almost everyone has them.

[driftdiver]

"Then Dems get control and add Are you a Christian? Yes? then you are disqualified. Are you a Conservative? Yes? then you are disqualified and so on."

I see your point. I don't agree that anyone and everyone should have a gun. I don't have an issue with responsible teens having one for hunting or self defense etc. However, I have an issue with anyone who is a danger to society having one. Either we are a nation of laws or we have no laws.

[Dog Gone]

Due process itself is a limit on your constitutional rights. This is not that complicated. Quit trying to make a sermon out of it.

[looscnnn]

Symantics, restricted banned very little difference to us common citizens. So now you are stereotyping people that look a certain way as being bad.

I have done the Goth thing, punk thing, skater thing, metal thing, stoner thing, prep thing and so on. Most of the goth and skater kids I new of never got into trouble. The ones that did got into trouble for skateboarding where it was banned or for loitering.

Feel like stereotyping other groups based on what they look like? Just a warning, you will be playing with fire.

[tpaine]

Due process itself is a limit on your constitutional rights.

You disagree with Justice Harlen? Why?

This is not that complicated. Quit trying to make a sermon out of it.

Quit trying to preach that gov't has the power to prohibit machine guns.

[tpaine]

And we are seeing the answer.. Lawyers. --

[Dog Gone]

I've never heard that about Switzerland and I rather doubt most citizens have full autos. But even assuming they do, Switzerland has nothing comparable to the conditions we are dealing with in terms of gangs and urban violence.

I guess you can argue that the reason Switzerland hasn't had any Columbines is because everyone has a machine gun, but I never saw one there. There might be other explanations.

[Dog Gone]

I don't disagree with what he said. It's the opposite side of the coin, though. Due Process cuts both ways.

You have the exclusive right to your property until Due Process tells you that you don't.

And ONCE AGAIN, I never said that the government has the right to prohibit machine guns.

[tpaine]

Dog gone:

Give it up, tpaine. You're talking to gun people on this thread --
--- I've never heard that about Switzerland and I rather doubt most citizens have full autos.

Yep, 'gun people'. I know a lot of gun people dog, and you ain't one.

[tpaine]

And ONCE AGAIN, I never said that the government has the right to prohibit machine guns.

And once again I'll quote historian Paul Johnson, who said:

"-- Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language.
For the fact that they do so is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. ...
Those who treasure the meaning of words, will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones.
The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status."