I think restricting the ownership of machine guns is fair, myself.

(April 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think restricting the ownership of machine guns is fair, myself.

Agree, absolutely no issue. I'd go so far as supporting random inspections (ownership and safety issue).

(April 23, 2017 at 9:36 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The right is not only implicit in 2A, the 9th and 10th amendments reserve unenumerated rights to citizen and the states.

It's pretty simple. American jurisprudence has recognized that such a right, with limitations, exists.

And they revised the Constitution to do it.

---

(April 23, 2017 at 9:03 pm)chimp3 Wrote: I agree.  American jurisprudence has recognized the need for refinements of our legal right to bear arms.  I take exception to people who try to interpret the second amendment as limiting our right to own machine guns. The second amendment in its original intent is archaic in addressing school shootings and obese dumb asses ordering burgers at McD's. Thomas Jefferson proposed a health regimen that involved taking rigorous walks while carrying a rifle. Jefferson was not foreseeing people waiting in line at the gym to use the treadmills.
Primary in all of this is the original intent that tyrants such as Trump would not feel safe trying to dominate an armed populace. Primary in all of this is that the Black Panthers did not have the right to bear arms openly in the sixties in California.
 I am not a member of the NRA. Tantamount in all of this is whether we have the right to defend ourselves against tyrants.

Guess what, you're not going to do that with an AR-15.

I agree ! We not going to defend ourselves with an AR-15! Who has the upper hand? Trump with his MOAB's or the quail hunter with a .410? Who do you trust more?

(April 23, 2017 at 9:53 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 9:36 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And they revised the Constitution to do it.

---

Guess what, you're not going to do that with an AR-15.

I agree ! We not going to defend ourselves with an AR-15! Who has the upper hand? Trump with his MOAB's or the quail hunter with a .410? Who do you trust more?

"more"? Neither.

So . . .

how we get MS-13, Bloods, Crips and Latin Kings to go along with that ?

(April 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think restricting the ownership of machine guns is fair, myself.

Ownership of machine guns in the US has been heavily restricted for more than 80 years. In that time the only person in the US I know of who has been convicted of murdering someone with a legally owned privately held machine gun was an Ohio police officer. Legally owned machine guns aren't a big problem in the US. Hell, they aren't even a small problem. The regulations currently in place regarding machine guns seem to be sufficient.

---

(April 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think restricting the ownership of machine guns is fair, myself.

Define random inspection.

If you mean having law enforcement set an appointment with a private citizen to meet at a mutually agreed upon time and place so the machine gun can be inspected then maybe.

If you mean allowing the cops to show up unannounced at someone's home and demand entry in order to inspect that person's legally owned property without a warrant then no. That would be a violation of the 4th amendment.

(April 23, 2017 at 10:22 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: So . . .

how we get MS-13, Bloods, Crips and Latin Kings to go along with that ?

Beaver Creek proved how effective "citizen militia" was against professionals.

(April 23, 2017 at 10:31 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(April 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think restricting the ownership of machine guns is fair, myself.

Ownership of machine guns in the US has been heavily restricted for more than 80 years. In that time the only person in the US I know of who has been convicted of murdering someone with a legally owned privately held machine gun was an Ohio police officer. Legally owned machine guns aren't a big problem in the US. Hell, they aren't even a small problem. The regulations currently in place regarding machine guns seem to be sufficient.

I know this, thanks.

Quote:

---

(April 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think restricting the ownership of machine guns is fair, myself.

Define random inspection.

If you mean having law enforcement set an appointment with a private citizen to meet at a mutually agreed upon time and place so the machine gun can be inspected then maybe.

If you mean allowing the cops to show up unannounced at someone's home and demand entry in order to inspect that person's legally owned property without a warrant then no. That would be a violation of the 4th amendment.

I think you meant to quote Brewer. I can agree with your stipulations, though.

(April 23, 2017 at 5:07 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: They meant "long guns", for protection from English and Indians. This is in the record from the times. The militia was to use those guns back when it took days to get regular troops to a problem area. "Well regulated" meant drilled regularly so they would know which end of the gun to point at the bad guys. This is all in the historical record for those who will look.

Except that for better or worse, the Supreme Court decided that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. Pretty recently actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v...of_Chicago

You yanks should consider yourselves lucky.