Ack! The first sentence in the second paragraph should read “The Appendix to the ‘FAQ on National Firearms Act Weapons’ also makes the point that law enforcement personnel in many places often refuse to sign the paperwork necessary to obtain the necessary state and federal permits.”
Federal law always trumps state laws. Did you hear about the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision about medical marijuana? That was mostly a decision about federal law being over state laws.
Local officials who won’t sign the paper work can be overcome by having a federal judge sign it. This is what I had to do.
ROTFLMAO! Oh, pk, you have no idea how much that silliness brightens my day. Thanks for the giggle!
Needless to say, you’re absolutely incorrect.
Really? Would you mind telling me where a federal law was not allowed to trump a state law, other than when the fed law was written with exceptions in it? The courts have taken no notice of the 10th Amendment recently.
And whats the point of this arguement anyway. You haven’t properly answered my question: Fully automatic weapons are legal, even you concede that they are legal in many jurisdictions of the U.S… There are many people in possesion of these weapons, yet extremely few are ever used in the commision of a crime or terrorist act. So why should they be banned?
I’ll let you believe there are areas machine guns are illegal in the U.S. no matter what, but you did read the list where they are legal, and believe me, it’s not as hard to get that form signed as one might think.
I want to know why machine guns should be banned when they simply aren’t used for violent acts?
pkbites:
There’s an entire body of law devoted to the interaction of federal and state laws. This is usually known as “preemption analysis.” In a nutshell, a federal law will preempt a state law only in limited circumstances:
-
Matters on which the Constitution has expressly delegated exclusive power to Congress. Treaties and the declaration of war are two examples.
-
Matters on which the Constitution has delegated some authority to Congress, and the federal and state laws are inconsistent. The courts take a pretty narrow view of “inconsistent.” When the federal government sets a minimum standard (such as “you must have a federal permit to own a machine gun”) and a state sets a stricter standard (“no private ownership of machine guns”) there is no conflict.
As far as I can determine, no appeals court has ever held that federal laws requiring permits in order to own machine guns preempt state laws that set stricter requirements or ban machine guns altogether.
The point of this is that you claimed machine guns were legal in every single state in the union, as long as you had a Class 3 license. This assertion is wrong, wrong, wrong, yet you refuse to acknowledge this simple point of law. If you won’t even admit to the blindingly obvious, why should anyone bother to engage in substantive debate with you?
Automatic weapons are, at least occasionally, used in the commission of crimes. Remember those two bank robbers in L.A. who went on the giant, televised shootout with police a few years back?
Automatic weapons are virtually never used in self-defense, and I defy you to show me any example of their use in self-defense that could not have been accomplished just as effectively with a single-shot weapon. The Branch Davidians do not count, incidentally.
So in the cost-benefit analysis of machine guns, you have:[ul][li] Some use in criminal activities, with obvious implications for massive death and destruction[/li]
versus
[li]no self defense benefits whatsoever, but they’re fun to shoot[/ul]That analysis, to me, weighs heavily in favor of banning the damn things. Now why exactly is it that you think private ownership of machine guns should be legal?[/li]
And I still want to know why private ownership of chemical weapons is banned when they aren’t used in criminal acts. Go on, take a swing at it, pk.
Merely one example among thousands: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/993815p.pdf
I didn’t say they NEVER were used in crimes. I don’t believe there is any device that is NEVER used in crime. But the small amount of criminal use does not justify limiting my freedom. Why should my freedom be decided upon the acts of the criminal few?
Machine guns are justified because I have a right, under the 2nd Amendment, to posses militia weapons. A militia weapon is any weapon routinely given to a common field soldier. Field soldiers are given automatic weapons.
Field soldiers are not given chemical or nuclear weapons, therefore they are not militia weapons. I do not have to be a soldier to posses a militia weapon, it is my birthright as a U.S. citizen to posses one.
Oh, and why don’t the Branch Davidians count? The OP is mine, I’ll say who counts & who doesn’t. 
Christ, pkbites, could you possibly beg the question any more? You start a thread about the efficacy of gun control, then, when challenged to show that machine guns are beneficial, run and hide behind the Second Amendment. So are you thereby condeding that they are not beneficial, and if not, why are machine guns beneficial to society?
For purposes of that discussion, I don’t care what the Second Amendment says or how you interpret it. I want to know whether there is any tangible benefit to private ownership of machine guns that outweighs their use in crimes.
So to recap, here are the things that you have refused to answer, despite repeated questioning:
-
Whether you concede to being full of crap when you claimed that machine guns are legal in all 50 states.
-
What benefit private ownership of machine guns is to society that would overcome their acknowledged costs from criminal activities.
-
Why chemical weapons should be banned even though they are never used in crimes.
As the saying goes, now would be a good time to put up or shut up.
pk: I want to know why machine guns should be banned when they simply aren’t used for violent acts?
Just to repeat another point for minty’s cost-benefit analysis, which I think got lost in the legal wrangling over state and federal law: Machine guns may not be used for violent acts in domestic crime in the U.S., but they are used in millions of violent acts in armed conflict and banditry worldwide, which is facilitated by legal commerce in them. They’re part of the intense small-arms proliferation throughout much of the developing world, where they do a hell of a lot of damage. As Scientific American reports:
Manufacturing and selling such weapons and ammunition for civilian ownership just makes it easier to funnel them into the violence of other countries. Since, as you keep pointing out, civilians hardly ever use them even for criminal acts, what real difference would it make to most civilians if they were banned? (And don’t just respond with more vague spluttering and fuming about “freedom”: we already know that any restriction always restricts “freedom” in its broadest sense of “being able to do anything I damn please”, and everybody is already willing to accept many such restrictions. We want to know specifically how you think such “megaweapons” actually are crucial to your constitutional freedoms in practical terms, given that civilians don’t even use the damn things. Your original scenario of needing them to resist a potential governmental coup has already been shot full of holes, so to speak. :))
Fenris:
Groovy. I’m trying to be intellectually honest, at least.
You disagree with stricter regulations regarding the private sale of guns, and if you haven’t grown too tired of this thread yet, I’d really like to hear why. I agree that the restrictions may not infringe in any way on the right of assembly.
minty green:
WB! You had a good weekend, I trust? Dawg.
I’m not surprised to learn that manslaughter laws replace excessive force laws in some situations – I suspected as much. However, over here the excessive force doesn’t have to be lethal to be punishable. If someone jumps you in the States, and you really, really kick the shit out of him, can you be charged with assault?
I’m also of the opinion that should someone break into your house in America, you are within your rights to shoot and kill him. You can’t be charged if you do. Over here, that’s strictly a no-no. And speaking of no-nos….
Freedom:
No, no, no, no, no. Back to your cage, beast!
Huh? One of us must be misunderstanding something here, because the quote you cite seems to be arguing *against * women killing their sleeping husbands.
I’ll grant you that Abe’s knife vs. gun example can be examined back and forth on the basis of its own merits. It might not have been the best possible example of the problem he was addressing. But the point he was trying to make, I think, is that having a gun lying around the house can lead to situations in which one might be tempted to respond to a minor threat with too much force – like when my uncle hopped out onto his porch and started waving his .45 about because his neighbor complained about the volume of his (my uncle’s) TV.
But here’s where your assertions really go awry, Freedom. At your request, I will compare your statement with Abe’s.
Abe sez:
- Freedom translates:
- Not quite the same, you see?
Abe sez:
- Freedom translates:
- Sure nuff, you got that part right at least.
Abe concludes:
- Freedom translates:
You may notice at this point that there’s a slight discrepancy between the conclusions Abe draws from his argument, and the conclusions you draw from his argument. In short, you’re putting words into Abe’s mouth. Abe is not arguing for some sort of “a greater mind to control [the people’s] environment and make important decisions for them,” even if he does to some extent see people as “ imperfect and irresponsible.” ( Are you arguing that 100% of the people are * perfect and responsible 100% of the time? No? Oh. I didn’t think so.)
originally posted by Freedom:
I just know there has to be a classic one-liner in response to this statement, but I can’t remember what it is.
Look, you don’t need mind control to pass sensible handgun restrictions. They can come about through a purely democratic process, as they have here in Sweden, where the majority of people simply decided that it was just too damn unsafe to have a lot of guns lying about. What’s so totalitarian about that?
Damn. You gotta post fast to keep up with this thread.
pk: Machine guns are justified because I have a right, under the 2nd Amendment, to posses militia weapons. A militia weapon is any weapon routinely given to a common field soldier. Field soldiers are given automatic weapons.
Also fragmentation grenades and antipersonnel mines, but you don’t see those in civilian use either!! Jeez pk, I have to say that that’s some pretty shoddy reasoning you’ve got there. By your analogy, one could also say that since groups of field soldiers are routinely allotted field support weapons, groups of civilians have a right to own howitzers and mortars for private use. Suffice it to say that I do not think that your notion of “it’s my birthright as an American to equip myself with whatever a field soldier gets for combat use” is a widely accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment, or is likely to be one anytime soon.
Svinlesha:
Yes, a disproportionate response can also be the basis for an assault charge here in the States. The law probably varies a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I think that’s a good general description of the state of the law. Do keep in mind that justification/self-defense is an affirmative defense anyway, so the defendant will have to prove that the response was legally justified and not disproportionate to the threatened harm.
As for the use of deadly force when somebody breaks into your house, state laws probably vary so much that I would hesitate to generalize. Texas is the only one I know for sure. Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code says deadly force is justified if reasonably necessary to protect land or property from the imminent commission of a burglary, among other crimes. Thus, if somebody breaks into your Texas home with the intent to steal your stuff, you can justifiably cap his ass.
However, I also know from an acquaintance of a friend that it’s a real bitch to get large quantities of burglar blood out of the carpet, so the extra expense of new carpet is one more thing to consider when weighing the costs and benefits of shooting the guy crawling out your window with your VCR in his hands. 
p.s.-An excellent weekend indeed, thank you very much! You just can’t top a girlfriend who asks to spend a holiday weekend camping, fishing, and hiking. 
minty:
Sure can’t do that over here. You’ll do time.
[hijack]
Glad to hear you had a nice weekend. Yer girlfriend seem like a real nice lady. What caliber weapon did she pack?
[/hijack]
[William Shatner]
Must . . . resist . . . urge . . . to joke!
[/William Shatner]
Kimstu already pointed out that that is completely unsound. But quite apart from that, as I said earlier, quoting law is not an argument in this sort of debate! I mean look at it…
Gun-control: “The law should not allow civillians to possess machine guns, because [arguments not repeated here].”
Anti-gun-contol: “Yes it should because the law currently allows civillians to possess machine guns.”
WTF??! You should be telling us WHY civillians should be allowed to posses machine guns, not whether or not they currently are! And saying that it’s a natural right or freedom is exactly the same thing, because there is no such thing as a “natural” right or freedom, so all you’re really telling us is that you believe you should have that right or freedom, which makes your argument “civillians should be allowed to possess machine guns because I believe civillians should be allowed to possess machine guns.”
Svinlesha has, for the nth time, attempted to illustrate the difference between valid and invalid techniques after Freedom once again tried to prove his arguments by invalidating mine. Svinlesha, thank you again for keeping my points straight in my absence, and also for your objective point of view. Freedom, while dodging the overall purpose of my post to him, did manage to raise one relevant point in his response.
I said:
Freedom replied:
Yes, the concept of excessive force was very clearly what I was talking about, and very clearly what you responded to. Freedom goes on:
Shooting dead someone who menaces you with a knife could be considered excessive force. It would depend on the situation of course, and on the laws applicable, if any. It was a poor example, but it strikes me that you’re reading what you want to read, and responding accordingly. You had better go back and read what was actually posted, and try to read with eyes unclouded.
You are wrong. Let’s take a look at what I really posted, with some emphasis added in order to help you read with eyes unclouded:
I did not make the original knife statement; I merely suggested that such an example might be considered disproportionate (which it is, strictly speaking; whether it is justified or not is another argument that probably requires more knowledge about a particular situation). The example was admittedly not the best illustration of excessive force, so apologies for that. I was continuing an existing line of argument, and picked up a situation posted by someone else (can’t remember who) so that I could go over the point of excessive force briefly (it then turned into another big issue: geez, relax). You will note that I offered discussion, but no such conclusions as you attribute to me.
Although that is not what I concluded, what you state is actually a perfectly logical suggestion. Someone suffering a lapse in judgement will not be able to misuse a gun if there are no guns available. In fact, no one would be able to misuse guns at all if there were no guns, but we have gone over this already.
Freedom, you and one or two others do not appear able to tell the difference between an argument and a position. Now it is becoming clear you have difficulties correctly identifying conclusions as well. If guns are your religion, don’t expect to pass that religion on to everyone else through these silly techniques.
[slight hijack but still on the topic of excessive force]
In some parts of the world, people trained in hurting others are considered armed with lethal weapons. A boxer’s hands are lethal weapons, and a martial artist’s abilities are much the same. Failure to register one’s “weapons” can result in punishment. Using such weapons in an uncontrolled environment (outside the gym, for example) or hostile situation may also bring charges of excessive force. Is this the case in the US? As an aside, I dimly remember that excessive force was one of the premises behind the movie Con Air, as the hero–a trained fighting machine from what I remember–was imprisoned for beating the crap out of a couple of soldiers who were molesting his wife (or similar plot). I’m not about to learn law from a movie, but it popped into my mind and would seem to indicate that the concept of excessive force does exist in the US (manslaughter shares some similarities with excessive force, perhaps there is a god link there).
[/slight hijack but still on etc., etc.]
I see this thread is even less coherent than it has been in past days. Call me a chickenshit if you want, but I’m bailing on this round. Thanks, it’s been fun folks, and I’ll be happy to take part in a more focused debate in the near future. (Maybe we can try to hash out just what the goals of good gun control legislation should be, although I suspect none of us are that far apart on that; it’s the methods we disagree on. Or perhaps, we can try to find the boundaries between reasonable regulation and the infringement of our constitutional rights.) I apologize to those of you I’ve left hanging; you’ll get over it though, I’m certain. Save your arguments and I’ll try to address them in the next round.
Cheers and have a good day. I’m off to the pistol range in a bit.
UncleBeer
but I am on vacation, and I haven’t checked the boards since the 23rd of May, so please bear with me.
For the nervous types: I have been largely engaged in wearing a kilt (Galloway plaid) and a broadswoard for several days at “Scarborough Faire”. No gun-play here.
[Overall]
We have laws that declare an activity or commodity illegal, and enact punishment for them; no law ever devised, that I can think of, has ever physically prevented anyone, anywhere, at any time, from committing an act or using a commodity.
So further restrictions are, IMHO, pointless. I arrived at this conclusion long before I joined the NRA. Using nothing more than my own reasoning and judgement. So accusations that I am just “espousing the NRA line” are unwarranted. I came to the NRA after arriving at my own conclusions.
So there!
[/Overall]
Abe sez:
Um…wrong. It is illegal to sell, or otherwise transfer possession to, any person unable to lawfully own or possess a firearm. It’s a Federal Felony. Now maybe you understand some people’s frustration with you a bit? You are operating under some severe misapprehensions concerning gun ownership in America, our crime rates, or the rates of death for other causes, accidental and intentional.
Tornado Siren: there already is a moderate amount of control on the sale of firearms; quite a bit more on the manufacture and distribution, which is why so many lawsuits against gun manufacturers are being tossed out on their ears. The general consensus is that you cannot hold someone, or some corporate entity, criminally liable for obeying the law. If the law is insufficient, then there are established mechanisms for modifying it, instead of costly litigation.
Which is why we gun nuts call such lawsuits “legislation by litigation” and thoroughly despise it.
I’ll further emphasize something pkbites said earlier: any projectile, regardless of caliber, is potentially armor piercing, depending upon the velocity of the projectile and the thickness of the armor. High velocity rifle rounds are quite potentially armor piercing, w/o that being the intention of their design.
“Armor Piercing Ammunition” is a term applied to any round specifically made with pointed core made of hardened metal (steel, for example), surrounded by lead (for weight), with or w/o a soft metal jacket.
Minty: slight hijack, but:
You wanna know what really chills my testicles? The fact that you are correct. And that the ACLU, bringers of freedom from oppression to any and all at the drop of a hat, will fight your fight up to the supreme court if you wanted to say a prayer in public, or espouse a racist platform, and will do so for free while you are sitting in that CA Prison. Note that I do not think that this is a bad thing, either.
But our poor federally licensed machine gun owner can’t even get his phone call returned from the ACLU to argue his case on 14th Amendment grounds. This I believe to be a bad thing.
And FWIW, pk’s extrapolation was no more or less ridiculous, logically speaking, than your leap from firearms to nerve gas. Only pk seems to be expanding on a theme Freedom brought up; that it is elitist “lowest common denominator” legislation to widely restrict large masses of civil, obedient citizens because of the misdeeds of a few, or the potential. As someone else said earlier (I believe it was UncleBeer) that there does seem to be an alarming trend in legislation in this country (I couldn’t care less about others) to pander to the lowest common denominator. Just look at Prohibition as one of the most blatant examples of this trend; or its red headed stepchild, “The War On Drugs.”
After all, with that sort of reasoning, “gag orders” and the prohibition of free speech may be next right after the 2nd, as “the next Hitler” may stir the masses with impassioned rhetoric.
As well:
Those were semi-autos, purchased illegally (as both were prior felons) converted, illegally, to full-auto. Or are you trying to imply that they were legally purchased by two lawful purchasers?
If I may be so presumptuous…
Nerve Gas is considered “Ordnance of War,” while machine-guns are only partially in that category. Thus the heavy restrictions on purchase and ownership. PK may have made his Class III process seem easier than it was; but the fact that he got one indicates that he’s a law abiding citizen with a clean record, no record of mental defect or domestic violence, or any record of substance abuse, was never dishonorably discharged from uniformed service, and has never renounced his citizenship. My kind of person. As I’m sure you are (I will at least assume such for now; to do otherwise would be rude and ignorant of me).
Kimstu: the private ownership of machine-guns in the USA is hardly at the “worldwide distributor” level; the arms appearing in the hands of rebels and militias in other countries are provided by companies that either manufacture or distribute firearms. The companies in the USA that either manufacture or distribute firearms, to either American licensed gun dealers or international distributors, is federally approved, as are their customers. A little document called an “End User Certificate.” Equating private ownership of firearms, even machine-guns, in the hands of American Citizens with the proliferation of military-grade assault rifles in the hands of foreign regimes, juntas, militias and rebels is like trying to stretch a Trojansub[/sub] onto a pachyderm’s penis.
(in re. to pk):
Again, we run into that “Ordnance of War” thingy; the items quoted above all fall squarely into that category. By military reasoning (which often is left out of such laws) the employment of those devices requires specialized training. During the period of Napoleonic Warfare, Grenadiers were select volunteers, rigorously trained, and had short life spans (imperfectly fashioned fusing mechanisms take their toll, you see). That has carried through, legislatively, to this day. Private citizens may posses such devices, but not in quantity, and not for redistribution to third parties. Collectors, monitored by the BATF, with special licenses, having passed rigorous criminal background checks (even more so than the standard checks conducted for regular firearms purchases from licensed dealers). Why? I dunno. Why do people collect stamps? Cars? Art? Individual collectors of different grenades used throughout history in warfare are no different, and aren’t reselling in bulk to President-for-life Mobuto in Africa, or El Presidente Eduardo in Central America.
Let’s restrict this discussion to “Arms”; that is, non-explosive, non-incendiary, non-area-effect projectile-firing rifles, shotguns and pistols, and thus keep it in the bounds of reality for the vast majority (99%+) of American gun owners. Arguments in extremis, on either side of this issue, are hardly representative of day-to-day reality.
Back to Minty:
Now you’re getting the gist of it. Kudos!
Cumber:
Horse feathers! The concept of “natural rights” is a philosophy. And as no single philosophy has claim to the throne of the “Truth of Human Existence”, “Natural Rights” (which a great deal of our DOI, Constitution and BOR is based, incidentally) is as valid, if not more so, than any other philosophy. So the “It Is My Right!” argument, in this instance, is the valid argument. Yours is not. You are attempting to disprove, or change, a precept of American existence, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that it is necessary. And you’re not dealing with the US Congress here; we are not feeble minded lawyers to be swayed by politicking and vote-mongering. Rigorous logic, precedent (cite) and reason are the order for the day.
Abe: I am the ExTank (read: dunderheaded Irsih-Italian American, former soldier of Armored Warfare) so I’ll lay niceties aside and speak plainly:
Freedom’s (as well as pk’s OP) points are, by-and-large, philosophically, historically and legally accurate. For Americans, anyway.
To wit: a free, armed people are the surest guarantee against tyranny, even if it is the gradual encroachment, the insidious pruning from that tree, namely Liberty, that has existed continuously on this planet longer than any other form of government. Those of us on this message board espousing, even advocating lawful, safe, firearm ownership by citizens are generally, to one degree or another, adherents of that principle. This is to give you the basic precepts on which we stand, to better understand where we come from.
Arguments espoused in the name of convenience, which argue that the infrequent is the normal state of human affairs, and that individual liberty must be curtailed generally due to the actions of the few base individuals who cannot conduct themselves within the bounds of the social and legal covenant of “Ordered Liberty” cut zero slack with us. You can show us footage of Columbine until the VCR breaks, and we will not be swayed; precisely because Columbine, as well as Dunblane and Port Arthur, notwithstanding their inordinate media exposure, are not the norm.
And it’s not that we do not feel for the victims or survivors; we are even more sensitive precisely because the object of those tragedies, the firearm, is held to be responsible, instead of the person or peoples who have committed these acts. And as we cherish firearm ownership as a badge of distinction, a symbol of liberty and citizenship in the oldest continuous democracy this planet has ever seen, we take extreme exception to fallacious logic that seeks to place the blame for these tragedies on the firearms, instead of the individual, in the name of restricting a natural right that we hold dear, and which this country was founded, and has grown upon.
To interject a touch of the mundane into this debate, I must end here to go do laundry (even us gun nuts, or at least this one, likes clean underwear). I’ll return later and read page 5.