Sam Adams
Member
I haven't read all 250 posts on this thread, so forgive me if I'm about to repeat points that others have made, but I have some points to make.
I think that FM2Wildcat is wrong. You should be able to go out and buy a fully-armed F-4, just like Bill Gates should be allowed to go out and buy a fully outfitted carrier task force if that's what floats his boat (pun intended), just like any of us (Fincher included) should be able to walk into a store, plunk down the requisite purchase price, and walk out with a full auto firearm. Why do I say this? What part of the Constitution do I cite as my authority? Simple: Article 1, Section 8 contains the following clause (among many others) describing and listing the powers of the Congress:
FYI, Letters of Marque and Reprisal were basically Congressional authorization to be a pirate and go after enemy ships. The last use was probably during the War of 1812. The intent behind this is that private persons, or groups of them, could be of use to the national defense if they used their own weaponry to fight the enemy.
OOOOKAAAAAY, so where does that leave us? Simple: private citizens have the right to own ships of sufficient size, and armed with cannon, to fight a foreign nation's naval forces. Without that right, then the placement of this clause within the Constitution is utterly without meaning. You MUST be able to own such weapons in order for the Congress to able to grant you Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Updated for progress in technology, this means that anyone who can afford to buy a fighter, a tank, a ship, or a fleet of ships has the right to do so. Oh, and if you argue against the right being updated for changes in technology, then you also make a perfect argument for granting the government the ability under our laws to completely regulate and censor the press, since the newspapers no longer use the primitive hand-cranked presses of the 1780's and 1790's, and radio, TV and Internet speech would have no protection at all, since they didn't exist for well over 100 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. In short, that's an argument that you shouldn't make.
That being said, while Bill Gates could (under my reading of the Constitution) buy himself a carrier task force (for roundabouts $20 or $25 billion, money he could easily raise by borrowing against the value of his MSFT stock), using the ships or weapons contained therein in a manner that is harmful to US citizens or to the foreign policy of the US would be illegal and punishable. Back to this case - this would mean that Fincher (or any of us) should be able to purchase a full auto gun - but we couldn't endanger anyone or threaten to do so without committing a crime. Thus, owning a gun and bringing it to a range or other place to shoot it where it presents no realistic possibility of injuring innocents should be protected - IS protected - by the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to it.
2 further points: 1) The US government was created by the People. Its birth certificate, its charter, is the Constitution. It is subordinate to the People - after all, how can a creator be subservient to the created? As such, it is logically and legally impossible for the federal government to be able to own weapons which weapons it then turns around and makes illegal for the People to own. 2) Additionally, most of us are old enough to have grandfathers who were old enough prior to the passage of the '34 NFA to have purchased a gun at that time - including a full auto. Since a right is something that exists or does not exist, regardless of time or place, how is it that our grandfathers could've had the right to purchase a full auto but we do not? My view is that we still possess the right, a right which is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution (because it was a right that was, like freedom speech, the press, religion, etc. deemed so vital to the nature of our system of government that the government had to be specifically prohibited from infringing upon it), but that this right we all share is being massively infringed upon by the federal and state governments.
By the way, notice that the 2nd Amendment is absolute - there's no out for the government like in the 5th Amendment to get around a supposed prohibition simply by using "Due Process." Nope, the 2nd is a no-compromise provision.
I think that FM2Wildcat is wrong. You should be able to go out and buy a fully-armed F-4, just like Bill Gates should be allowed to go out and buy a fully outfitted carrier task force if that's what floats his boat (pun intended), just like any of us (Fincher included) should be able to walk into a store, plunk down the requisite purchase price, and walk out with a full auto firearm. Why do I say this? What part of the Constitution do I cite as my authority? Simple: Article 1, Section 8 contains the following clause (among many others) describing and listing the powers of the Congress:
FYI, Letters of Marque and Reprisal were basically Congressional authorization to be a pirate and go after enemy ships. The last use was probably during the War of 1812. The intent behind this is that private persons, or groups of them, could be of use to the national defense if they used their own weaponry to fight the enemy.
OOOOKAAAAAY, so where does that leave us? Simple: private citizens have the right to own ships of sufficient size, and armed with cannon, to fight a foreign nation's naval forces. Without that right, then the placement of this clause within the Constitution is utterly without meaning. You MUST be able to own such weapons in order for the Congress to able to grant you Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Updated for progress in technology, this means that anyone who can afford to buy a fighter, a tank, a ship, or a fleet of ships has the right to do so. Oh, and if you argue against the right being updated for changes in technology, then you also make a perfect argument for granting the government the ability under our laws to completely regulate and censor the press, since the newspapers no longer use the primitive hand-cranked presses of the 1780's and 1790's, and radio, TV and Internet speech would have no protection at all, since they didn't exist for well over 100 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. In short, that's an argument that you shouldn't make.
That being said, while Bill Gates could (under my reading of the Constitution) buy himself a carrier task force (for roundabouts $20 or $25 billion, money he could easily raise by borrowing against the value of his MSFT stock), using the ships or weapons contained therein in a manner that is harmful to US citizens or to the foreign policy of the US would be illegal and punishable. Back to this case - this would mean that Fincher (or any of us) should be able to purchase a full auto gun - but we couldn't endanger anyone or threaten to do so without committing a crime. Thus, owning a gun and bringing it to a range or other place to shoot it where it presents no realistic possibility of injuring innocents should be protected - IS protected - by the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to it.
2 further points: 1) The US government was created by the People. Its birth certificate, its charter, is the Constitution. It is subordinate to the People - after all, how can a creator be subservient to the created? As such, it is logically and legally impossible for the federal government to be able to own weapons which weapons it then turns around and makes illegal for the People to own. 2) Additionally, most of us are old enough to have grandfathers who were old enough prior to the passage of the '34 NFA to have purchased a gun at that time - including a full auto. Since a right is something that exists or does not exist, regardless of time or place, how is it that our grandfathers could've had the right to purchase a full auto but we do not? My view is that we still possess the right, a right which is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution (because it was a right that was, like freedom speech, the press, religion, etc. deemed so vital to the nature of our system of government that the government had to be specifically prohibited from infringing upon it), but that this right we all share is being massively infringed upon by the federal and state governments.
By the way, notice that the 2nd Amendment is absolute - there's no out for the government like in the 5th Amendment to get around a supposed prohibition simply by using "Due Process." Nope, the 2nd is a no-compromise provision.
