Pro-Gun Anti-Gun.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Onyx

I never once said guns should be banned or taken away from people. In fact, I distinctly remember stating that the types, number and frequency of gun purchases should be stricter. What I said the second amendment had outlived its' purpose and the argument that ensued, is that to big of a word for you, was in regards to whether or not a civilian uprising could succeed or not. There was also some argument on how effective guns were for self defence situations among the general populace. How you confused any of this with advocating banning guns and subsequently using force to take them away from people is beyond me.

Geeze, you're right. How could I possibly get the idea that someone who believes a constitutional amendment has no purpose would ever want to do away with that amendment? That's just crazy talk! Shame on me.

Originally Posted by Onyx

How can I answer when I've never been put in the position where I have to.

It's called imagination. See if you close your eyes and think about a situation in your head you can sometimes imagine about how you'd respond to those situations. Imagination is great! You can also use it to turn your couch into a medieval fortress, and your dog into a firebreathing dragon. You could even be like Jillian and imagine your intellect is adequate and your politics are relevant!

Go ahead, give it a try! I bet you can create whole worlds out of a simple cardboard box.

Originally Posted by Stabby

despanan seems to be largely inflammatory but he called out godslayer which i found amusing....

I find that to be amusing as well. I also find this "Despanan" to be a handsome chap who's antics are cheeky and fun.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Geeze, you're right. How could I possibly get the idea that someone who believes a constitutional amendment has no purpose would ever want to do away with that amendment? That's just crazy talk! Shame on me.



It's called imagination. See if you close your eyes and think about a situation in your head you can sometimes imagine about how you'd respond to those situations. Imagination is great! You can also use it to turn your couch into a medieval fortress, and your dog into a firebreathing dragon. You could even be like Jillian and imagine your intellect is adequate and your politics are relevant!

Go ahead, give it a try! I bet you can create whole worlds out of a simple cardboard box.





I find that to be amusing as well. I also find this "Despanan" to be a handsome chap who's antics are cheeky and fun.

People are often much to flattering to themselves in their imagination. In a situation where my life is on the line, I'd like to imagine I'd be able to take the other person's life before they were able to take mine. I'd also like to imagine I'd have the self control to check my rage and disable them without resorting to killing. That's the problem with imagination, unless you've been put into the situation, it's all a bunch of useless speculation.

[Delkaetre]

An educational point about Rednecks and Hillbillies.

Redneck comes from Scotland, where a particularly strong-minded group of Presbyterians against the Church Of England wore red scarves around their necks to remind others of how strongly they felt after signing a declaration in their own blood. When emigration to America began, it was many of these red-necks who left for America and settled in remote and hilly areas to be free of the Church of England's influence.
Hill-billies derives from a term for the supporters of King William of Orange who fought against the Catholics when settling Ireland and later moved to settle in America.

Though the origins of the term may have been forgotten even in the communities, some of the stubbornness about gun rights in these groups may be their heritage, coming from Scotch-Irish groups with such a strong history of battle and bloodshed. Gun ownership is a cultural thing that dates back to actual war and culture clashes more significant than the modern stereotypes of shooting animals and city folk.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

An educational point about Rednecks and Hillbillies.

Redneck comes from Scotland, where a particularly strong-minded group of Presbyterians against the Church Of England wore red scarves around their necks to remind others of how strongly they felt after signing a declaration in their own blood. When emigration to America began, it was many of these red-necks who left for America and settled in remote and hilly areas to be free of the Church of England's influence.
Hill-billies derives from a term for the supporters of King William of Orange who fought against the Catholics when settling Ireland and later moved to settle in America.

Though the origins of the term may have been forgotten even in the communities, some of the stubbornness about gun rights in these groups may be their heritage, coming from Scotch-Irish groups with such a strong history of battle and bloodshed. Gun ownership is a cultural thing that dates back to actual war and culture clashes more significant than the modern stereotypes of shooting animals and city folk.

Gun ownership, or the belief in gun ownership rights, is a really complex subject with widely varied beliefs and motivations. Pretty much the only thing that binds the varying groups together is the belief that people should be able to own guns. Some people for gun ownership rights believe the types of guns allowed should be regulated, assault rifles and wait periods for example, and some believe you should be allowed to own anything you can get your hands on. For a lot of them paranoia is the overriding motivator. Self defence, government rounding us all up to be placed in FEMA camps or whatever. For others it is sport like hunting and target shooting that makes them want to keep guns available (These are the ones that tend to be more open to regulation.) Then there's the ones that are strict constitutionalists, they seem to have a belief that the constitution is some infallibly divine inspired document (Along with the paranoids, they're the most resistant to regulation. After all, the constitution doesn't say the right to bear some arms). There for, if it is in the constitution, there's no need to examine any underlying reason behind why it was, still is or if it should still be in the constitution. Then there's the fear of change morons. They feel the same way towards just about any subject. That's the way it has always been, hence, it shouldn't be changed.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

It isn't the fear of change.

What was talked about was the burning of the Constitution Re-writing a new one.

When I think it is a far better Idea to Keep the original because hell it has survived this long and things have worked out well considering We The People dropped the ball somewhere along the line but I think the people of this nation are just now starting to get their heads back in the game from the way things are looking.

Who is to decide what is to be changed and what should be left in?

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

It isn't the fear of change.

What was talked about was the burning of the Constitution Re-writing a new one.

When I think it is a far better Idea to Keep the original because hell it has survived this long and things have worked out well considering We The People dropped the ball somewhere along the line but I think the people of this nation are just now starting to get their heads back in the game from the way things are looking.

Who is to decide what is to be changed and what should be left in?

I don't think you'd fit in the fear of change group, Deadman. From some of the statements you've made, I think you fit more into the paranoia group. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not saying you're crazy or anything as paranoia, in this case, is just an irrational fear of needing a gun to defend yourself. The reason I say it is irrational is that the chances are slim, unless you own a convenience store in a crack neighbourhood that you've been neglecting to tell us about, yet you talk about it like there's a very real threat out there against you.

As for the a rewrite on the constitution, I think it is overdo. The thing was written by a bunch of guys, over two hundred years ago, who had no idea what kinds of technology and situations would be around today. As for who would be writing it, same way it was done before. Only issue I see with this is that we've become polarised by region, red/blue/purple states, and may not be able to remain whole as a country. Then again, I don't see this as being necessaryly a bad thing. It doesn't seem like we're one country any more as it is, more like a couple of countries forced to try and act as one and nothing gets done to anyone's liking.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Onyx

I don't think you'd fit in the fear of change group, Deadman. From some of the statements you've made, I think you fit more into the paranoia group. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not saying you're crazy or anything as paranoia, in this case, is just an irrational fear of needing a gun to defend yourself. The reason I say it is irrational is that the chances are slim, unless you own a convenience store in a crack neighbourhood that you've been neglecting to tell us about, yet you talk about it like there's a very real threat out there against you.

As for the a rewrite on the constitution, I think it is overdo. The thing was written by a bunch of guys, over two hundred years ago, who had no idea what kinds of technology and situations would be around today. As for who would be writing it, same way it was done before. Only issue I see with this is that we've become polarised by region, red/blue/purple states, and may not be able to remain whole as a country. Then again, I don't see this as being necessaryly a bad thing. It doesn't seem like we're one country any more as it is, more like a couple of countries forced to try and act as one and nothing gets done to anyone's liking.

You seem to have a great misunderstanding of the subject you talk about like an out of date carton of milk.

I think you need to re-read the constitution that was written 200 years ago by some "Old dead white guys",look at the documentation provided by the Bush,Clinton,Bush Jr. ,and Obama's laws that have been and will be signed into effect.

Compare the Document of some "Old Guys" from 200 years ago to the bullshit that has been and is being shoveled out now,most importantly,Compare them to the Bill Of Rights.

First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

Second Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

Third Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_A...s_Constitution

Fourth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

Fifth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

Sixth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_A...s_Constitution

Seventh Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh...s_Constitution

Eighth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_...s_Constitution

Ninth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_A...s_Constitution

Tenth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_A...s_Constitution

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

You seem to have a great misunderstanding of the subject you talk about like an out of date carton of milk.

I think you need to re-read the constitution that was written 200 years ago by some "Old dead white guys",look at the documentation provided by the Bush,Clinton,Bush Jr. ,and Obama's laws that have been and will be signed into effect.

Compare the Document of some "Old Guys" from 200 years ago to the bullshit that has been and is being shoveled out now,most importantly,Compare them to the Bill Of Rights.

First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

Second Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

Third Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_A...s_Constitution

Fourth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

Fifth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

Sixth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_A...s_Constitution

Seventh Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh...s_Constitution

Eighth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_...s_Constitution

Ninth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_A...s_Constitution

Tenth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_A...s_Constitution

To illustrate my point I'll use the 4th and the internet as an example. The fourth, pretty much, gives us a right to privacy in our homes/papers/belongings. How do we apply this to the internet? After all, if I send you something via the net, it doesn't go directly from my computer to yours. It is broken up into chunks and each chunk is sent out multiple times, via multiple routes, to you. When it arrives it is then reconstructed on your end. How should the 4th be applied to this situation? The government didn't come into either of our homes and read the document, they just intercepted it as it traversed the network. Same goes for the 4th vs cell phone and voice over IP conversations. Is not a rewrite of the 4th in order to say that the government can't listen in to internet communications.

How about your beloved 2nd? It places no restrictions on the level of arms you have the right to bear. Theoreticaly you have the right to a nuclear arsenal under the 2nd guarded by tanks and machine guns. The second also talks about the need for militias. So what about private security firms like Blackwater? Do we, as a people, want private armies allowed in our country. Private armies with 2nd amendment guaranteed rights to have whatever weapons they can get their hands on? Sorry, to me at least, it seems like this will lead us to Cyberpunk futures with powerless government and ultra powerful corporations that rule the country through use of private armies?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

The Second Amendment shouldn't have restrictions.

Now am I saying that everybody should be able buy and own Machine Guns?

If they can afford the cost of parts and ammo.

They can own one or several now if they have the funds and a clear record.

Hell if you have a clean record you can get a Federal Firearms License and buy them online or through mail order.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

The Second Amendment shouldn't have restrictions.

Now am I saying that everybody should be able buy and own Machine Guns?

If they can afford the cost of parts and ammo.

They can own one or several now if they have the funds and a clear record.

Hell if you have a clean record you can get a Federal Firearms License and buy them online or through mail order.

We're going to discontinue the conversation at this point, at least from my end. By all means, feel free to go on speaking to yourself. First Amendment and all that. Because your last statement has proven to me you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Sure, you can own a machine gun, so long as it isn't operational. Even former military can only keep their assault rifles, not the firing pins. What do you think Waco was about? It wasn't DHFS due to child safety or mental health, tt was the ATF that led the thing because the dude was modifying weapons to be full auto, against current federal regulations. Assault weapons, though the current law is lacking due to being more about banning a look of weapon more than functionality of that weapon, are not legal.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Prove me Wrong then.

Show me where the Law states American Citizens (Private Civilians no less) cannot own Machine Guns now.

Look up Class 3 Machine Gun Licenses and the requirements to qualify.

You just proved that you're completely ignorant of U.S. Gun Laws and the Second Amendment,let alone the rest of the Constitution.

You've just been taken to school and don't realize it or don't want to realize it.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Prove me Wrong then.

Show me where the Law states American Citizens (Private Civilians no less) cannot own Machine Guns now.

Look up Class 3 Machine Gun Licenses and the requirements to qualify.

You just proved that you're completely ignorant of U.S. Gun Laws and the Second Amendment,let alone the rest of the Constitution.

You've just been taken to school and don't realize it or don't want to realize it.

Source http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Definitions

A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

Federal Firearms Regulations

[Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]


It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

--------------------------------------------
So, while in the theoretical it is possible to own one if you already do, in reality, it is another story to actually do so. And that is just to own one. There's so much red tape involved in the transfer of ownership that I'm sure coming down with carpel tunnel by the time you have the gun, is of higher probability than approval of the transfer every going through. Further more:
-------
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

-----

As for schooling me. I'll be man enough to say i'm 1/8th schooled due to you being correct about the legality of "owning" a machine gun, if you happen to be over the age of 75 or so, in which case the machine gun is unreliable enough to be worthless and the recoil would probably knock ya on yer rear anyway.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Onyx

Source http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Definitions

A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

Federal Firearms Regulations

[Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]


It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

--------------------------------------------
So, while in the theoretical it is possible to own one if you already do, in reality, it is another story to actually do so. And that is just to own one. There's so much red tape involved in the transfer of ownership that I'm sure coming down with carpel tunnel by the time you have the gun, is of higher probability than approval of the transfer every going through. Further more:
-------
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

-----

As for schooling me. I'll be man enough to say i'm 1/8th schooled due to you being correct about the legality of "owning" a machine gun, if you happen to be over the age of 75 or so, in which case the machine gun is unreliable enough to be worthless and the recoil would probably knock ya on yer rear anyway.

O ya, and that's just federal law. I didn't delve into further state regulations which can be even more restrictive than federal laws. So maybe 1/16th schooled.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Onyx

Source http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Definitions

A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

Federal Firearms Regulations

[Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]


It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

--------------------------------------------
So, while in the theoretical it is possible to own one if you already do, in reality, it is another story to actually do so. And that is just to own one. There's so much red tape involved in the transfer of ownership that I'm sure coming down with carpel tunnel by the time you have the gun, is of higher probability than approval of the transfer every going through. Further more:
-------
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

-----

As for schooling me. I'll be man enough to say i'm 1/8th schooled due to you being correct about the legality of "owning" a machine gun, if you happen to be over the age of 75 or so, in which case the machine gun is unreliable enough to be worthless and the recoil would probably knock ya on yer rear anyway.

One final note. I didn't want to leave out that pretty much everyone you see on TV that does have a machine gun is part of some military history group the filming crew has one on loan from one, they're about the only ones that can get through the red tape. Them and private collectors. I met some guys in a military history group that was into WWII (I volunteered doing computer crap like add photos to the web site and keep up a database of the group's collection, they had all sorts of cool crap from including jeeps and fully functioning Lugers.) One of the members that was a WWII vet died and even they had a hard time getting all the paperwork through to transfer the ownership of the Luger after he died. As I remember they had to make the weapon non-operational for months while waiting for everything to go through. And this was a WWII historical society that did local parades and had actual WWII vets in it. Good F'ing luck trying to buy a fully functional, full auto, machine gun as a private citizen.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Really???

Well Citizens can get a Class three Machine gun License You proved yourself wrong on that one,as stated previously Machine Guns are Legal for civilians to own....How the hell else do you explain events like this....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o4r...eature=related

Yes there are Companies that display their Full Auto's at this shoot (and many others) and if you meet the proper requirements,pay the $200.00 tax stamp,jump through all the hoops,go through an inspection,further background check,then you have to fork over the couple thousand or so dollars for the weapon,and you have a Legal civilian owned machinegun.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Really???

Well Citizens can get a Class three Machine gun License You proved yourself wrong on that one,as stated previously Machine Guns are Legal for civilians to own....How the hell else do you explain events like this....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o4r...eature=related

Yes there are Companies that display their Full Auto's at this shoot (and many others) and if you meet the proper requirements,pay the $200.00 tax stamp,jump through all the hoops,go through an inspection,further background check,then you have to fork over the couple thousand or so dollars for the weapon,and you have a Legal civilian owned machinegun.

I already addressed all that.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Show me where the Law states American Citizens (Private Civilians no less) cannot own Machine Guns now.

I know I haven't been very involved in this discussion, so forgive me a bit for butting in. ^_^

Honestly, if I met a private citizen who not only wanted to own a machine gun, but also did, then I would be much much more concerned about the private citizen than I ever am of any government agency.

Maybe that's naive on my part or whatever, but that's how I feel. [Then again, crazed fanatics of -any- kind tend to put me off, simply because they are so damned unpredictable.]

[Godslayer Jillian]

So says the Christian. But you do have a very valid point, and it just shows how fucking ridiculous these people's paranoia is. Not to mention the fetishism that is talking about the constitution like it's a fucking godsend.

[Tam Li Hua]

Jillian: On the constitution thing, I think we're agreed. I'm glad for the freedoms we have in the U. S., but similar [or hell, many of the same] freedoms can be found in other countries under different kinds of governmental systems as well.

[That may sound unpatriotic of me, but whatever; I've never really been a fan of my own country.]

[Godslayer Jillian]

No no, that's precisely right. We're not saying George Bush was right in saying "it [the Constitution] is just a god damn piece of paper"
But if it's so perfect then the Bill of Rights wouldn't be a list of amendments they didn't give enough of a shit to include in the actual Constitution.
And if someone will argue for the Bill of Rights, well, what's so goddamned special about it? Precisely because it is imperfect it has included many more amendments throughout history, one of which we even canceled out.
Caring about its permanence more than its impositions, both good and bad, upon society, is just stupid.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I know I haven't been very involved in this discussion, so forgive me a bit for butting in. ^_^

Honestly, if I met a private citizen who not only wanted to own a machine gun, but also did, then I would be much much more concerned about the private citizen than I ever am of any government agency.

Maybe that's naive on my part or whatever, but that's how I feel. [Then again, crazed fanatics of -any- kind tend to put me off, simply because they are so damned unpredictable.]

You really have to separate out those who own machine guns, and t those who would want to own them for nostalgic reasons, from the nuts. Everyone I've been introduced to who owns a machine gun does so for historical purposes, the fact that they're fully operational is more of an authenticity thing. I'm sure there's a few out there that own machine guns for the sake of owning a raw killing machines, however, they keep their base feelings behind historical façade. That isn't to say you won't find loonies firing them off. The thing is that loonies like Deadman don't own them. They're just using one that a history buff has at a show.

Then there's those who want them. If they're not outright nuts then they fall into the history buff group. Either they're into machine guns for their various war period links or as a more general history of warfare/guns. However, if you ever encounter someone who wants a machine gun just on the fact that they're "f'ing cool as hell", and that's the least scary reason I've heard for them to want one, then they're crazy, and thus shouldn't be allowed to own any firearms, plain and simple.

[Tam Li Hua]

Onyx: That's a good point; a history buff is an entirely different kind of collector. Those kinds are usually pretty cool folks. The ones that bother me, though, are the crazies who are a wee bit too eager to form militias.

If I heard someone say that about a machine gun, I'd have to ask them if they meant that in a fun, historical sense or in a scary, "I wanna join the army so I can kill lots of people" way.

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

No no, that's precisely right. We're not saying George Bush was right in saying "it [the Constitution] is just a god damn piece of paper"
But if it's so perfect then the Bill of Rights wouldn't be a list of amendments they didn't give enough of a shit to include in the actual Constitution.
And if someone will argue for the Bill of Rights, well, what's so goddamned special about it? Precisely because it is imperfect it has included many more amendments throughout history, one of which we even canceled out.
Caring about its permanence more than its impositions, both good and bad, upon society, is just stupid.

That's something you really have to respect the framers for. No matter how you feel about what they did, or didn't include, or how they did, or didn't, set things up. At least they were smart enough to know they were to stupid to get it perfect and left things open to be modified.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Some rich tradesmen figured out that they should allow the government they imposed on everyone else to be able to be changed by popular demand or otherwise it won't look like a representative democracy?
These guys were geniuses!

[Onyx]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Onyx: That's a good point; a history buff is an entirely different kind of collector. Those kinds are usually pretty cool folks. The ones that bother me, though, are the crazies who are a wee bit too eager to form militias.

If I heard someone say that about a machine gun, I'd have to ask them if they meant that in a fun, historical sense or in a scary, "I wanna join the army so I can kill lots of people" way.

Which is why they're pretty much the only ones that can get their hands on on them. I'm serious about the amount of red tape you have to go through. Deadman tries to make sound like there's just a matter of a background check, license and fee. It isn't like that at all. For EVERY transfer, no matter if you already have the licence or not, you still have to go through a lot of paperwork, including the signing off of a "chief law enforcement officer" of your area. There also has to be a reason of necessity for the transfer included in the paperwork, and "because I want one" isn't going to cut it. Granted, "because I'm a collector" could be used to skirt this requirement, however, the signing off of law enforcement is a check on this. So, if you're just some nut and not a real collector, good luck getting the sheriff or chief of police to sign off on the transfer of ownership.

And, as I said before, this is just federal regulation and doesn't cover any further regulations on the state level that could prohibit the ownership all together.