Posted on 11/21/2007 6:33:25 PM PST by neverdem
I sincerely hope you are correct. One thing is for certain: we are going to find out in due course.
Good post. Many thanks.
Be sort of like Switzerland, only with more of the weapons privately purchased.I understand finding a public rifle range in Switzerland is not much of a problem. :)
The attempt to confiscate privately-held powder, cannon, and other arms was viewed with alarm by the British subjects in Boston who were being punished collectively for the actions of a few insurrectionists who tossed untaxed tea into Boston Harbor.
The actions of the central government were heavy-handed and were meant to punish and coerce the people into obeying the government. The people of Boston were expected to turn in their arms and such surrender was a condition of being allowed to leave Boston.
Even without an explicit ban on confiscating arms, the arms of the citizens of Boston were private property that was being taken by the government without compensation.
All this activity around Boston, Lexington, and Concord reached its ignition point in April of 1775, a full fifteen months prior to the Declarataion of Independence. All the actions taken up until that time were viewed as the reasonable response to a tyrannical government.
The militia clause was added to clarify the benefits of the right. RKBA isn’t just for individuals acting purely individually, it benefits the state & nation by creating a body of prepared & competent people from which a well-regulated militia can be drawn from on short notice.
Put another way...
Governments tend to suppress personal arms ownership; the militia clause explains that it’s GOOD for a government to have an armed populace.
This one, and many others are encouraging.
Thanks for this post. It is quite enlightening.
Since we don't elect these nine people who will decide the fate of our rights, all I can say is that if you believe in God, pray!
And, if you don't believe in God, pray anyway!
Changing that is easy for liberals. You simply decree that a given set of words means what you want it to mean, whether that meaning has anything to do with the words in question or not. Just about any English Professor will tell you that words have no inherent meaning, that meaning depends entirely on the reader of the written words. That is Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest. The strongest baddest fellow makes the rules.
Making something legal but prohibitively expensive does, for all but the rich or well-connected, make something prohibited.
When considering “survival of the fittest”, we often find that “fit” rarely matches what we would like it to.
Here’s that 2nd amendment question we were talking about.
Linking, it’s your friend...
xxxxxxxxxxx
Aree you nuts??? Why would I want to link critical info.
shout it out with passion.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.Oh, and the First Amendment only applies to organizations to which one may belong.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Making something legal but prohibitively expensive does, for all but the rich or well-connected, make something prohibited.
In other words, I’m prohibited from buying that Lamborghini! This is terrible! Where in our Constitution does is say I’m now allowed to have a Lamborghini!
I do know people who legally own fully automatic weapons. None are “rich”. If cost is the criteria, not only am I unconstitutionally barred from owning that Lamborghini but barred from awning a simple bolt action Remington 700.
Poor analogy. A Lamborghini is a high point of quality, precision, hand-crafting and luxury. An M16 is a churned-out, mechanically cheap, mass-produced product for grunts.
Better one: due to artificially limited supply of cars, a VW Golf in decent shape would cost you $250,000 - and that’s at least 20 years old. You can’t even buy a car made after 1986. Dodge Neons, which should be relatively cheap, are simply unavailable.
Machineguns are not expensive because they are expensive to make.
Machineguns are expensive because the supply is horribly limited.
A new M16 should cost about $1000.
A new M16, having sat unfired in a box for over 20 years, will cost you upwards of $20,000.
You can’t even get an M4 - at any price.
The fact that you’re hanging onto the “but machineguns are legal!” argument shows that the gun-grabbers are wise: by providing a tiny loophole, they’ve warded off the “they’re banned” accusation, and get idiots like us arguing over the semantics of availability - right at a point where neither of us can afford such a thing.
Yes, OLD machineguns are legal. After a couple decades of prohibiting new ones, their value as collectibles far exceeds their value as tools.
Yes, OLD machineguns are legal. For most practical purposes, they’re banned. I recently bought an M4LE; it does not have “the switch”, which if not for 922(o) it would have - and for the same very affordable price.
“Where did the “state” regulated come from?”
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
They could be referring to “State” as in country or other rather than state as in Virginia, Maryland, etc.
Very good point about the “loophole” being allowed, which technically but not in reality makes machineguns legal.
The same could happen in states like Cali, if blue-sky schemes like “microstamping” prove to be legally valid but physically impossible.
One of the goals of such schemes is not only to require expensive and needless modifications and certifications, but to limit the time period that such are accepted (which implies that a safe design somehow becomes unsafe after the passage of a couple of years) and to change the requirements frequently so that prior certifications become worthless.
When the micro-stamping requirement kicks in soon, I believe that every NEW certification requires the feature and every OLD certification will expire, removing the prior gun from the "NOT UNSAFE" list.
It's worth noting that the Dix case, I believe it was, that provided the cover for passing these onerous laws, was of a young man who "accidently" killed another person by pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger. The gun in question ALREADY HAD a device to indicate that there was a round in the chamber. But because it wasn't a multi-color flashing neon sigh which reads "LOADED GUN", it apparently wasn't sufficient.
I have been hoping that the Seecamp company would make a Kalifornia legal version of their 380. The modification needed is identical to what they already did for the LWS 32. But the likelihood that they will do that is now decreased because whatever trouble and expense they endure will expire soon and they would have to create yet another set of Kalifornia legal guns to continue sales.
There's a limit to just how profitable guns are and if the regulatory costs exceed the profit, the sales will stop. That is the goal of the anti-gunners.
All too true, and a major part of the reason I left Kali for FL.
Still, fully automatic weapons are legal. If you want one you can buy one.
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.