How The Federal Government
Nullified the Second Amendment
to 'Ban' Automatic firearms
American Thinker,
by
William Sullivan
Original Article
Posted By: Magnante,
8/14/2019 9:47:55 AM
There are two competing theories being debated today about American individuals’ “right” to gun ownership. (snip) The notion that the federal government could “ban” gun ownership was such an anathema to American sensibilities, and so clearly afoul of the Second Amendment’s intent as had been clearly understood up to that point, that the NFA could not be passed as an overt federal restriction upon individual ownership of firearms. The law was constructed and upheld upon the federal government’s presumed ability to tax, not upon its ability to restrict ownership of firearms.
The 2nd Amendment was enacted to put every citizen on a par with the state. British abuses of persons and property were fresh in their minds and they didn't want their new government to engage in those practices.
The reality is that individual sovereignty as symbolized and enforced by gun ownership has been eroded since, say, the Civil War. One or two flatfoot cops may think twice about entering private property but they will simply call SWAT for overwhelming firepower and numbers. And then there are the feds, armed to the teeth and storming houses and buildings on a regular basis on the flimsiest of pretexts.
'Oh we can't have people owning tanks and Apache helicopters' sneer the intellectually lazy. To them I say - why not if you can afford it? Eventually it will be traditional firearms against Star Trek-type weaponry and then it will be too late because government isn't going to err on the side of the Constitution.
18 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 8/14/2019 10:45:45 AM (No. 151983)
I hate when the likes of Chris Fredo Coumo is referred to as some voice of sanity and reasoning. He's a leftist dumb jerk. Debating the left is a waste of time. Almost any gun owner knows the facts about ownership of fully automatic weapons. The feds get around things by taxing or levying taxes on items they deem prohibited. I do not even refer to certain firearms as semi-auto they are single fire (as in pull the trigger for each shot to fire) but they are auto loaders be it handguns or rifles. 19th century technology in the 21st century. Republicans should not touch this or debate the democrat gun grabbers about this and certainly beware of taxing what the public has the right to own through the Constitution. I might hate red cars but my neighbor has the right to own as many as he wants but a leftards might want to ban that which they dislike.
8 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
jacksin5 8/14/2019 10:50:05 AM (No. 151990)
Under Obama every Federal Agency has been issued firearms, and has LEO powers. Given the amount of Federal Statutes, it is easy to imagine that every citizen is in unknowingly in violation of some Federal Law, (Medical Marijuana is a good example), and could be subject to the Manafort Treatment.
3 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 8/14/2019 10:52:14 AM (No. 151996)
The government was CERTAIN that banning machine guns and short barreled guns in 1934 would be immeditately reversed by the Supreme Court as clearly unconstitutional. So, they decided to make the guns economically unattractive and had a large, PITA bureaucratic barrier with a long, expensive and intrusive, and LONG "background check". This apparently passed muster, although it was never actually tested.
Currently, the "background check" for a suppressor (silencer) takes about a year, after filling out a lot of papers, notarized statements, fingerprints and photos. AND paying a $200 "tax", on what is about a $300 to $700 item.
I haven't purchased a machine gun, so don't have first hand knowledge of the delay time, but it is probably at least as long, a year's wait.
And of course, they DID ban any NEW machine guns being registered after 1986, so there has been a massive shortage of them, driving prices up by huge factors. A machine gun that cost $800 in 1985, can sell for $25,000 today, due to the artificial shortage created by the '86 ban. The government is very pleased with themselves on this.
And the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed". It does not say what kind. And their INTENT was that civilians would be able to match the police and military for firepower so that We, the People could prevent tyrants from taking over. IMO, the ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional on it's face.
14 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 8/14/2019 10:54:17 AM (No. 152001)
RE; #1's last paragraph.
In the Civil War, all the states provided militias for the fight, and there were a few militias which had wealthy benefactors who were able to afford to purchase and bring cannon, real artillery. The expense made it a bit rare, but there was no hint that owning heavy artillery by a private militia was any sort of illegal or untoward.
10 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
BarryNo 8/14/2019 11:07:48 AM (No. 152027)
Before the civil war, if you could afford it, you could buy it, was the norm for every type of weapon. A large number of 'military' weapons in that conflict, were privately owned. You had volunteer cannon units, manned by volunteers and equipped by a wealthy patron. There was one company equipped by its captain with some of the first live-action carbines for their calvary, which meant they were 4 or five times as effective in combat as their less well armed opponents, who had to rely on government issued weapons
Government has no right to restrict access to any weapon. Though, honestly, I would react badly to a George Soros sponsored bomber with nuclear weapons.
12 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
JonR 8/14/2019 11:50:43 AM (No. 152078)
Slowly but surely, the objective of the liberal left (Democrats) in this country is an outright ban on firearms of any sort! They cannot inflict their Communist agenda on the country without disarmament. The crocodile tears over the latest mass killings by deranged individuals are nothing but a cover for this agenda! The left in this country has already discussed a 25 million reduction of lives in order to put their agenda forward.
The choice for this country is this; either stand up for the Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole or learn to live as subjects on your knees with the American way of life destroyed. Your choice!
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
curious1 8/14/2019 1:35:18 PM (No. 152192)
#6, that could be neutralized by a Trumpian F-22 squadron. :-)
And the above posters are correct. Just read some actual (not modern revisionist) history to see what the founders had to say about all this and what the attitude towards government was when the constitution was written and exacted. Then listen to the conniving leftists spew their lies and while you contrast and compare.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Mushroom 8/14/2019 1:36:42 PM (No. 152195)
As many of the fine Ldotters above have said, NFA34 is unconstitutional on it's face. It is approved for taxation only. So how does it still stand? By using the massive resources of the US to bankrupt anyone caught the challenges it. Then, suddenly, the DA drops the charges so it never gets an honest challenge. *This* is the tyranny we live under.
As we learned when WTP asked about Obama's citizenship/birth we were told we had no standing and it's none of our business. NFA34 and 86 are two peas in a pod. However since our betters have no such limits, too bad for us.
We are moving back to a serf/lord state and it needs to be stopped. *now*.
3 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
RenoVet68 8/14/2019 1:53:59 PM (No. 152201)
Is an assault anything like apepper rifle?
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Magnante"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)