Ron A Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Good observations Arthur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Arthur, I wonder how long after your 'contract right' to freedom of speech is abolished and you are barred from ever publishing a book, newspaper article or internet post again that you don't cry out indignantly that 'my right to freedom of speech is fundamental' and it is 'highly immoral' to prevent me from speaking my mind or expressing my opinions openly in our form of democracy (known as a republic). It is in the very same document (The Bill of Rights-first ten amendments, and therfore part of the U.S. Constitution) that my fundamental right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. It seems to me that you want to pick and choose which rights, guaranteed under theU.S. Constitution, are moral and and guaranteed. It seems that under your philosophy, my right to keep and bear arms can be subject to erosion and dillution, without a fundamental or moral loss, while your fundamental right to freedom of speech is inviolate. That's fine, and I know that you will probably trot out the old and tired argument that 'crying fire in a crowded theater' is not protected speech. True enough, but that involves definite injury to others. My inviolate (untampered with) right to keep and bear arms in no way definitely injures others. "Guns are not evil' (any more than a baseball bat is), but people can be. It is a moral choice and that can not be legislated. To close out, by way of analogy, as Sir Winston Churchill once observed, "Asking a nation to surrender part of her sovereignty is like asking a maiden to surrender part of her virginity." I, therefore, submit that to ask an American to surrender any part of his/her fundamental and moral freedoms, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of The U.S. Constitution, is like asking us to decide how we want to be raped. How and by what means do you, fellow American, wish to be stripped of your fundamental and moral rights. Do you want to be slowly stripped of your freedoms (over the course of 140 to 200 years), or do you wish to be ravished all at once!! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Either way, the end result is the same, the total loss of your freedoms (as in slavery and dictatorship)!!! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif Regards, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawksnest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Arthur: Would you gladly pay $200.00 and submit a form, which requires CLE approval (sometimes arbitrarily refused) and your fingerprints, to the government to own a pistol? A shotgun? How about only $10.00 per round of ammunition? In the U. S. Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison the court held the power to tax is the power to destroy. In 1934 the tax was $200.00. How much did a new Thompson sell for in 1934? Will you howl if the tax is raised? If a $200.00 gun that was taxed at $200.00 in 1934 is now worth $20,000.00 then how much should the tax be raised? Should only the rich and politically connected be permitted to own guns? Ask Diane F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Walter, You seem to be all over the map on this issue. A few posts back you mentioned that Northeners during the Civil War revolted against the draft because they did not think freeing blacks from slavery was worth dying for. Now you equate registration of firearms with a total loss of freedom and eventual slavery. I, as a Class III weapons owner, do not object to the 1934 NFA law. You, as a non Class III weapon owner, want to keep tilting at windmills because you live in New York state. I suggest moving to one of the 36 states which do allow private ownership of machine guns. Places like Knob Creek are a testament to the fact that this is the only country where civilians can own and operate flame throwers, quad .50's, tanks, etc. Even if all states allowed civilian ownership of all types of weapons, (though the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms, but does not specify types of arms since machine guns were not part of the Contenental army's arsenal), I am sure you would still feel that somewhere, somehow, sometime, somebody's Constitutional guaranteed right was being threatened by some Gilgamesh figure trying to undermine Churchillian bons mots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 hawksnest, If your CLEO refuses to sign, you have several officials in the state, or city, who qualify for this signature, not only the local police chief, and you could incorporate as a last resort. Now as far as the rich being the only ones who can own machien guns. That seems to have already happened, but it has nothing to do with the 1934 nominal $200 tax. What state requires one to submit a $200 tax for shotguns or pistols? .50 caliber ammunition is probably $5 a round. We live in a capitolistic society. You have to pay for your pleasures. You object to the $200 because it is a "tax". Sure we hate taxes. But of all the taxes I pay, this NFA tax, which was originally designed to discourage citizens from buying class III weapons when they cost less than the tax, is the least objectionable. For better or worse, this is the way the system has worked for the last 69 years. Since this board exists for those who enjoy owning and shooting class weapons, the 1934 law can't be as bad as you imply. There are plenty of substandard firearms produced for those whose buget limits their choices. The fact is the NFA tax has not changed. Why cry over milk that has not been spilled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Arthur , if you were as objective as you pretend, then you will notice that it was bigred, not moi, who first brought up the American Civil War in this thread. Also, it was, and continues to be, you who keeps bringing up the issue in the form of questions to me. I am simply responding. Believe it or not Arthur, I am not a Civil War veteran nor a member of the KKK. As regards Churchillisms and 'bon mots', Arthur, this is not about semantics and sophistry (on my part). I have attempted to write plainly about fundamental Constiutional and human rights, but it seems that some people just can't wake up and free themselves from all the liberal garbage about gun control being good for America, spewing from the orthodox press like the New York Times, Washington Post, not to mention, the 'low brow' television news casters, like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw. I will not even attempt to analyze the illogical drivel coming out from the likes of Rosie O' Donnel, Jane Fonda, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Sarah Brady. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Oh, Arthur, one more thing, prices on MG's and SMG's did not begin to rise significantly, and well beyond the rate of inflation, until after the 1986 weapons ban, forbidding the new manufacture and importation of domestically produced automatic weapons for civillian use (only). How is that for the beginnings of a police state? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIONHART Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 I'm with Walter 100% on this one. He is one that can't be blinded by lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Excellent point Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Thanks guys, for the vote of confidence. Speaking of voting, get out and save the Republic before it is too late!! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif Vote the liberal bums out at every level of government!!! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ph34r.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif Charge men!!! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif Regards, your very own mad republican http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif (our form of government-not the party). I consider myself to be an independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bisley45 Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Humm, This has to be the best spoken political descussion I have read in quite a while. I Might as well throw some other facts in.... Lincon aside from the draft and suspending Havious corpus also institued the INCOME TAX. The Civil War was becouse the Northerners cheated in getting a majority vote, let's remember a black man was worth 3/5ths a vote in the House. And freed slaves when they went North after the war were often Lynched for undercutting someones job at a lower pay rate The last time I read the Constatution it said the ".... The right to Keep & Bear Arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED " (emphasis mine). There is nothing in there about muskets nor lazer guided railgun projectiles. Nor $200 sin tax Yes there are some people who by general consensus are alive only becouse it is illegal to kill them and destroy the moral fabric of our society at their every opertunity, I'm not overly in favor of them being able to walk into a shop and plunk down cash and have an UZI. However try getting your right even with a $200 check to the Federal Goverment here in Illinois, or New York City for that matter, it is not posible. We stand on a slippery slope, I'd rather have scumbag with a SMG and have the police put them into perment striped sunlight or an electric chair once they demonstrate antisocial tendancys. In my opinion laws need to punish wrong actions not take every responsable persons toys away becouse someone is stupid or deranged and might harm someone. Val Forgett Sr. Lobbied unsucessfully to have the transfer tax lowered, $200 was doubling the price of a Thompson back in the day, and it kept "0" out of the hands of the mobsters and depresion era bandits. It still puts it well out of the reach of some working familes and other hard working decent people who are not affluent. Just my .02 as the only way we can protect the other 9 original and all the other amendments is the teeth of the 2nd amendment. Otherwise I might not be writing this but sitting in someones Gulag if we didn't have the freedom of speach. Tieneme Square anwsered how long free speech lasts without a 2nd Amendment. BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incomplete Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 QUOTE (Bisley45 @ Nov 4 2003, 09:38 PM) The last time I read the Constatution it said the ".... The right to Keep & Bear Arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED " (emphasis mine). Now I don't want to seem againist you, but for arguments sake, it has "The right to Keep and Bear arms in a state militia shall not be infringed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Ohhhh.... wrong answer! But thanks fore playing our game ;-). "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note it says nothing about a State militia. For more information of what the "militia" is see "The Militia Act of 1797". I beleive that you will find that ALL (at least most) of us on this board are members of the militia. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Jr Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Get the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Rick V and John, Jr., you both get cookies and may go to the head of the class. Those are very astute observations indeed sirs! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Thank-you, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Since the 1934 NFA Act, there has been only one incident of a registered machine gun used in a crime. And that person was a police officer. If there had never been any tax, or some kind of control over machine guns, the number of these incidents would have been so frequent that another law would have come along to ban civilian automatic weapon possession altogether. While turning the second amendment into a staccato slogan, indicating defiance of the $200 Class III weapon transfer tax, may appeal to those who live in states that ban these weapons, but otherwise, it is just an exercise at paraphrasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incomplete Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 I was almost sure it said it maybe I am just getting lost somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Incomplete, following is the complete text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Quite frankly, what part of, "right of the people," and "shall not be infringed," some people fail to understand, escapes me! But, then again, we are talking about the kind of people who are not sure what the meaning of the word "is" is (Bubba). http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif We must forgive him; It must have been the terrible schools he attended as a youth (poor, ignorant Bill Clinton). P.S. Arthur, you state that (refering to crimes in which registered automatic weapons are used) if the 1934 NFA Act had not been in effect, "the number of these incidents would have been so frequent that another law would have come along to ban civilian automatic weapon possession altogether." (It is highly interesting that a police officer, not an ordinary citizen, was the one person, since 1934, to commit a crime with a registered automatic weapon.) Arthur, you must have been asleep in 1986, and ever since, regarding the 1986 civilian automatic weapons ban for all citizens of the United States. I mourned when that law took effect. Apparently you are still not aware of its full impact and meaning, inspite of the educational nature of this board. The full meaning and impact of that law will not be realized, possibly for decades-probably much sooner, until, over time, these weapons become unserviceable (due to lack of replacement parts), confiscated and destroyed for various reasons (crime, dictatorship, etc.), or sold to museums or to individuals overseas, etc. At any rate, the ultimate result is the same, total and permanent confiscation of all automatic weapons, from all Americans. Oh, it may take decades, but is inevitable, unless the 1986 law is repealed. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incomplete Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Walter, Are you really losing sleep over the possibility that Americans may not have access to civilian ownership of Class III weapons in the year 3000? Living in the here and now seems to provide more than enough stress and bother. Yes, Reagan signed the 1986 NFA law. But it would seem that the quantitiy is in step, if not ahead, of demand right now. Just a quick perusal of the firearms boards on the net shows an array of unsold registered Class III weapons looking for homes.There will always be people like us on this board who will insure that Colt Thompsons shall not perish from this earth. I would think that you would wish to move to a Class III friendly state now, before this imminent, and expected machine gun prohibition engulfs the entire country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Arthur, I truly am concerned with both the near and long-term future of automatic weapons for civilians in America. Yes, I am seriously considering a move to an NFA friendly state (can't decide which). I have considered Colorado, Montana, Alaska and Arizona. If these questions are not too personal for you, "Which state do you live in and what year were you born? What are some of your interests? Why not put it in your profile?" Regards, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Manhattan, Connecticut, California, Arizona, 1959, German Shepherds, History (esp WWII), Music (Drums), Motocross, firearms(Colt, Mini Brownings, SAA, SMG's), Film, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp40 Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hi Walter63a, I have been watching this thread with interest, it's true that our rights are being eroded daily! The fact that we have to move to a state that allows machineguns is somewhat disturbing to me, further proof that our rights are on the "loosing side" hummm....at first a $200 tax to posses a machinegun Wow, sounds reasonable huh? NOT! that simply means that the government can use this somewhat scary tactic in the near future as you know, that it has been brought up before-ammunition taxes etc. I believe that unlike some on this board, that our right to own these machineguns will be history before 2007!! Who truly knows if the crimebill will sunset? and will they pass another far worse law?furthermore, some people believe that the fact that machineguns are registered and strictly controlled means that the un-desireable persons are somehow prevented-magically-from making,stealing,buying these guns! It seems to me that a few class3 owners liken owning these firearms to being in an exclusive club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Interesting Arthur, German Sheperds are so very loyal (one of the most loyal to an individual). I love to hear drums in music, especially classical and march music. My best friend was born in the same year as you. Do you have multiple residences, or have you lived in each of those states at various times. I spent some time in graduate school in Michigan. Regards, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 MP40, yes, it does seem to bring out the snobishness in some individuals. Hmm, why 2007? As far as criminals having access to automatic weapons, there have been several recent incidents in Buffalo involving automatic weapons in the hands of criminals comitting criminal acts with said weapons (drive-by shootings in residential neighborhoods, bars shot up, robberies, and home invasions, etc). However, law-abiding citizens must cower in their houses, with the lights off and a shotgun at the ready. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/unsure.gif Regards, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now