[stm]

Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns. If you want to own a machine gun, fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.

[Last Laugh]

Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.

Needing a license is in itelf, unconstitutional.

[stevio]

Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns.

Really? Where is that exemption written?

[TalonDJ]

Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns.

When it was written it was legal under it for citizens to own CANNONS.

I assume by your 'logic' you think everything should be baned or highly restricted except muskets.

[Just sayin]

Are automatic weapons properly defined as arms? If not, please explain.

[jrp]

So you believe the 2A only applies to blackpowder firearms?

[beltfed308]

Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns. If you want to own a machine gun, fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.

Or this: Hey retard, when the First Amendment was written, there were no such thing as television. If you want to own a television fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a FCC license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.

[frogjerk]

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
in·fringe
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

[Red Badger]

Arms are arms. No delineations in the constitution between big and little, fully automatic or semi, just arms...........Where's your howitzer? Jefferson might ask if he were to be brought back today............

[labette]

Hey stm! When the First Amendment was written there was no such thing as the internet. If you want your opinion to reach more people than the town crier, Send four grand to the ministry of truth for your class III free speech permit...

"If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and....."Well, you get the idea.

[holymoly]

Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns.

Sophistry.

There were also no such things as semi-automatic rifles, bolt-action rifles, smokeless powder, jacketed bullets, etc., etc.

[mugs99]

when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns

When the first amendment was written, there were no such thing as computers. Does that mean we have no first amendment rights here on FreeRepublic?
.

[DBrow]

"when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns."

Then FedGov can censor anything you type on a keyboard or into a microphone!

[ctdonath2]

There is no "Class III license".
There is no way for a citizen to get a new (i.e.: post-'86) MG.
There is no way for a citizen to register an old (i.e.: pre-'86) MG that is not already registered.

There is a tax + paperwork for transferring MGs that are already registered. Since the number of registered MGs is severely limited, and law 922(o) forbids new ones, the few that are available (used and >20 years old) are horribly expensive (as in >10x "normal" price). For all practical purposes save collecting/investment (a used M16 runs >$12,000; gov't pays about $700 for a new one), MGs are illegal.

Know what you're talking about before suggesting someone else STFU.

Oh, and that nifty high-tech stuff you're using to read this sentence? didn't exist in the 1700s, so you have no "right" to use it - cough up your $4000 FCC license fee.

[ExpatGator]

Ironic that you wrote that on a computer, considering that you probably expect the 1st amendment to apply to your communications via computer.

Familiarize yourself with the caselaw surrounding this issue and you might just have a different view on things. Perhaps an educated view.

This fellow definitely set himself up for trouble, but the constitutional issues and findings, particularly as they relate to militias, support his position. However, he is gonna get steamrolled by a judiciary/legal system that will not allow a case citing United States vs. Miller (1939) to reach a jury.

[looscnnn]

Love how you try to sway people to your thinking. Do you have anything other than a single shot smooth bore muzzle loader?

[HogFixer]

United States of America v. Ronald Wilson Stewart, Jr


On November 13, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating Stewart's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922o, but affirmed his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Using the Morrison test, the Ninth Circuit ruled 18 U.S.C. § 922o did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and was unconstitutional as applied. In its opinion the circuit court wrote:

"...a homemade machine gun may be part of a gun collection or may be crafted as a hobby. Or it may be used for illegal purposes. Whatever its intended use, without some evidence that it will be sold or transferred—and there is none here—its relationship to interstate commerce is greatly attenuated."
"...section 922(o) contains no jurisdictional element anchoring the prohibited activity to interstate commerce."
"...there is no evidence that section 922(o) was enacted to regulate commercial aspects of the machine gun business. More likely, section 922(o) was intended to keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals—an admirable goal, but not a commercial one."

---

Don't go into politics, we have enough people like you already.

[Dead Dog]

Then please explain Miller vs. US. 1933. Otherwise, "Hey Retard STFU"

[Red6]

"Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns. If you want to own a machine gun, fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU." You wrote

And that's exactly the problem! That's exactly how they prevent normal people from owning guns in many places. It's technically legal and you have the right, so they say; but no one can afford it. What they do is create bureaucratic hurdles and huge costs so that the common man can NOT own a fire arm. Is a $4,000 fee to own a weapon reasonable? What do they do besides the same checks as required for a CCL/CHL.

When the Constitution was written, those muzzle loaders were the most modern and deadly weapons around, and they wanted the people to have the right to bear those arms. Do you know where your argument leads us? Semi-automatics were not around nor were revolvers. In fact, rifled barrels and bullets using a primer had not been invented.

[untrained skeptic]

So what would be your argument for the ban on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns, which are also banned by the National Firearms Act 0f 1934. Actually the NFA doesn't ban them, it requires they be taxed and licensed, and the government will no longer allow new weapons to be licensed.

However, the whole, those weapons didn't exist back then arguments is pretty weak at best and definitely doesn't apply to all the weapons involved.

[Charlespg]

Hey retard, when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns. If you want to own a machine gun, fine. Drop the four grand it takes for a Class III license. If you don't and you get caught then take your punishment and have a steaming hot cup of STFU.

do you like cheese ?