Does The Second Amendment Allow You To Own This?

[mudesi]

Poll question: Does The Second Amendment Allow You To Own This?

If Yes, why? If No, why not?

How about this?


Or this?


Like it or not, "arms" needs to be defined. Even the most enthusiastic of gun lovers (I assume, at least here on DU) agree that none of the above should be legal to own.

Poll Question: Does the second amendment allow people to own RPGs?

[Barack_America]

1. Absolutely. I use each of those weapons to hunt deer.

:P

[Ken Burch]

13. ,,,so THAT's how they get reindeer sausage...

:sarcasm: :eyes:

[ThomWV]

42. Hunting has nothing at all to do with it

hunting is just a diversion. It is your right to bear arms to defend yourself against whatever it is you need defending against, including your Government. So in that sense what give the Government a right to be better armed than its citizens? Can your Government regulate you to such an extent that your are powerless before it? I would say no.

[Hoopla Phil]

84. The constitution says nothing about hunting.

[leftstreet]

2. FFS The Democrats DO NOT need to be reviving the gun issue

Let this shit go

[Laelth]

4. Hear, hear. Now is not the time. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[doc03]

50. I agree, another ASB will give the GOP congress in 2010 n/t

[The Straight Story]

3. Depends on your rank

:)

And since those things are already against the law to own, what needs changed???

[mudesi]

7. Are Those Laws Unconstitutional?

That's what I'm asking. If not, why not.

[Hoopla Phil]

85. Yes, those laws are unconstitutional.

[AirBaud]

5. Should you be able to yell whatever you want in a crowded theater?

Why or why not?

[BlueJazz]

14. No...because you're bothering people and creating a disturbance.

That's like saying: "You can't have a Loud Voice because you might disturb somebody"

[krispos42]

6. Nope

Each of the items displayed here are indiscriminate in their lethality. The same public-safety exception that prevents a person from falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre also applies to indiscriminate weapons such as explosives (grenades, RPGs, mines) and fully-automatic weapons like that Gatling gun.

Since you can't precisely aim the explosive effects of a bomb nor account for every bullet a fully-automatic weapon can discharge, the public-safety aspect of Constitutional rights restrictions comes into play.

[mudesi]

11. The Same Can Be Said About A Hand Gun

A fired bullet isn't exactly discriminate in its lethality. Stray bullets kill innocent people all the time.

[Pavulon]

18. Or your kid driving a car

or falling pianos.

[mudesi]

20. There Is No Amendment....

....that states "Right To Children Driving A Car", so that's not exactly relevant to the question.

[Pavulon]

29. I support the second. NFA does its job

gun violence root cause is no more related to firearm access than rape is to having a cock.

It is easy to make up bs gun control and say it "look we did something"

[krispos42]

26. I'll clarify

Any non-automatic gun fires one and only one shot per pull of the trigger. The shooter therefore has complete control over where every bullet goes. In the case of stray bullets, the shooter is choosing to randomly fire a bullet every time he pulls the trigger. That's being deliberately irresponsible for every single time he squeezes his finger.

The bullet in a non-auto firearm goes where the shooter wants it to go. With an automatic weapon or an explosive, you get a zone of indicriminate lethal force. Automatic firearms jiggle and jerk even when held by a trained shooter, sending bullets in a general but not specific direction.

[Hangingon]

55. This is why RKBA people don't give.

If you agree to any limits, the gun grabbers jumps to all guns.

[Ready4Change]

78. Incorrect comparison

I am allowed to have the 'ability' to scream fire in a movie theater, and expected to have the responsibility to not do so unless necessary.

If I DO scream fire in a movie theater, is my larynx at fault? Should I have been denied the right to speak in the first place? Is keeping me from screaming 'fire' so important that doing so should be banned, even if that might increase the risk that people will die later in actual movie theater fires?

[BlueJazz]

8. They are "Arms". Let everybody own some. I don't see any mention of "Guns" in..

...the second amendment..just the word ARMS.
Everybody should be allowed to own ANY arms.

[Pavulon]

9. You can legally purchase all above

RPG7, GE minigun, and the ever so handy m67 fragmentation grenade. They are expensive and generally rich people with NO criminal background buy legal NFA regulated weapons.

That is why they are NEVER used in crimes.



This is scarry looking. (legal)


Plain jane...
Illegal.

[Captain Hilts]

17. People rarely commit crimes with rifles. They are not the trouble pistols are. nt

[MercutioATC]

24. ...and this is legal and non-scary, but essentially the same as an "assault weapon":

Remington 750 Woodsmaster .308 gas-operated semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine.

[Mike 03]

10. What are they called? I hope the fuck not.

But I DO hear people selling AK-47 and Chinese made automatic weapons on the radio station that airs a "swap Meet" type thing every day here.

I want to know if they are illegal? If they are, I'll write to them and tell them to not accept phone calls from these maniacs.

[Pavulon]

16. You do more time for unregistered machine gun than rape or manslaughter

, well that is if you can pay a lawyer. it is enforced and quite illegal to sell machineguns.

RPG7 is an anti material (or personnel) weapon used by USSR and Russia, the minigun is generally mounted to aircraft as a door gun, and the grenade, is well, a grenade. Used to throw into rooms where guys like that little piece of shit who shot 4 police may be hiding. Bursting radius killer.

It makes them dead or disoriented to the point where the entry team just kills them outright.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Listen more closely...semi auto are the only one allowed in this country

[yagotme]

82. SORRY

but you are incorrect. With the proper paperwork, licences, fees, and ATF approval, and living in a state that allows them, you, too, could have a fully automatic weapon. Check out Knob Creek website. Millions of rounds fired every year, full auto, destructive devices (exposives, cannon), NO MURDERS!!!

[Arctic Dave]

12. And to think, those moose thought they were outsmarting me

when they bought kevlar vest. Let's see who laughs last now.

[Callisto32]

76. Any rifle of an appropriate caliber

for hunting deer would have few problems penetrating a kevlar vest. It wouldn't take "cop killer" bullets either.

[Captain Hilts]

15. That's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the "well-organized militia." nt

[Tejas]

67. Link please? - nt

[yagotme]

83. Oh really.

The British were on their way to Concord and Lexington to seize "arms". Which included military muskets with bayonets (assault weapons of the time), and CANNON! Powder, flints, projectiles, etc. were also to be seized. Our war of independence was started over GUN CONTROL!
Thank you for your time.

[SteveM]

86. The Founders didn't have lap tops in mind when they wrote the First...

yet, here we are using them. "Well-organized," back in the day, meant that a militia member was expected to provide THEIR OWN WEAPON, suitable for military use, and to be experienced in using it. "Arms" meant a gun which could be -- and was designed -- to be held in one or both arms and fire bullets/shot. Crew-manned weapons, field pieces, naval guns, flame-throwers, nukes -- even RPGs (a "rocket," after all) -- do not fall under that definition. The only real area of dispute is whether or not the Federal Firearms Act went too far in keeping severe restrictions on full-auto sub-machine guns and true assault rifles, as most military people consider these weapons suitable for military use. But most 2A defenders have learned to live with that bright line.

The actor Dorn (played "Warf" sp? in Star Trek: Next Generation) owns a Korean War-era Saber fighter jet and flies it. I have seen a complete ball turret from a WW II bomber in action, firing twin .50 cal. machine guns. It is legal to own all manner of weaponry, but you may have some paperwork and money to contend with. BTW, I have yet to hear of exploding refineries or planes being shot down, but the Brady Bunch thinks it will happen, I guess.

[Indy Lurker]

19. You may wish to review Heller Vs. DC

It was decided last summer. It's now settled law, it's just waiting to be incorporated into the states.


**********************
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

**********************


Thus, Full automatic firearms, grenades, and RPG's and sawed off shot guns may continued to be banned from general purchase without running a foul of the second amendment as they have since 1934.

[Furyataurus]

69. Ummm.............

RPG's, grenades, Dillon GE mini-guns, belt-fed machine guns, select fire rifles, etc.... ARE IN COMMON USE by the MILITARY/POLICE, therefore MILLER protects those from being "banned" for civilian use. The Miller Supreme court ruling said that the "sawed off" shotgun wasn't protected because it wasn't in "common use" by the military, which it WAS incidently for "trench" warefare in WWI, way before the Miller case was heard and used extensively in WWII.

[Indy Lurker]

77. Re-read the decision

Its not common use by the military, it's common use by citizens, who would be potential militia members.

If it was arms in common use by MILITARY/POLICE M4 M-16 and short barreled shot guns would be protected, and SCOTUS clearly said they are not.

IMHO SCOTUS believes manually chambered firearms as well as semi-auto pistols and rifles under .50 are protected by the second amendment.

These weapons are in common use by civilians, and have been for a long time. I also think this will give any future AWB trouble.

[AlinPA]

21. Please see Heller decision (link below), Syllabus #2, 2nd page.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[Kaleva]

22. Some info

The grenade and RPG are classified as "destructive devices" and not as "arms" under the National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11,<5>.

The chain gun is legal to own in many states as long as it was manufactured before May of 1986 and if one is willing to undergo a deep background check that could take months to complete, pay a tax and doesn't mind BATF agents showing up at any time to inspect your very expensive toy.

[Richard Steele]

23. Everything in those pictures is perfectly legal to own in the USA.

Your ASSUMPTION is entirely incorrect, so please stop assuming it.
I'm on DU, and I certainly do not agree with you.

[Two Americas]

25. yes and no

First, privileges are "allowed," not rights. You are mis-using the word "right" as though it meant privilege.

The Bill of Rights does not "allow" people to do things, it forbids the government from doing things.

Secondly, yes, under proper circumstances all weapons can be and are owned. Nuclear weapons manufacturers own those weapons, and moreover - they sell them.

Museums are an example of where weapons of various kinds are owned by people. You could start a tank museum, for example.

How weapons are handled, stored, and used can be regulated, of course.

Regardless of where people stand on gun control, we should all reject your thinking here - talking about rights as though they were privileges and the implication that they are subject to popular whim and a majority vote.

Work to repeal the Second Amendment if you like. But don't ask us to see rights as privileges that those in power "allow" us to "have".


...

[CptPhil]

30. Very well said.

[Posteritatis]

38. Damn you, lack of "recommend comment" button! (nt)

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Politicalboi]

28. The Second Amendment

Was written for Muskets.

[Thothmes]

32. At the time pistols and rifles were available for

militia service besides muskets. The Amendment allowed these also.

[Two Americas]

33. sure

And freedom of the press was written for manuscripts, and freedom of association for horseback. Freedom of speech did not include radio or the Internet.

New technology always vacates and invalidates rights. (sarcasm of course)

[doggie du]

51. Maybe. And thus the First Amendment is no good for high speed presses, right?

??

[krispos42]

52. And "the press" was an actual hand-powered printing press.

Times change, technology marches on.

[spin]

62. Does the First amendment apply to computers or the internet?

The founding fathers could have never conceived of either.

[benEzra]

31. Those have never been in common use for lawful purposes in the USA...

and so the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Heller upheld the tight National Firearms Act restrictions on those.

Non-automatic civilian "assault weapons," on the other hand, not only meet the Heller common-use-for-lawful-purposes test, they DOMINATE many aspects of it (competitive and recreational rifle target shooting, and the most common defensive carbines in U.S. homes).

So my opinion would be that RPG's, Dillon Aero/GE Miniguns, and functional grenades are subject to the existing tight controls, but expanding those restrictions to cover currently legal civilian guns would NOT be constitutional. Just as the Court has upheld restrictions on child porn, but expanding those restrictions to cover currently legal books and magazines that the Moral Majority/AFA don't like would not be constitutional.

Like it or not, "arms" needs to be defined.

"Arms" HAS been defined, 75 years ago. Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber (with some additional over-.51 hunting guns allowed by exception). The Heller decision upheld that compromise.

So "arms" includes so-called "assault weapons," but not machineguns and RPG's.

[ljm2002]

34. Your point is important...

...and is usually glossed over in these debates about gun control.

The question amounts to this: should the right to keep and bear arms be an absolute right, without any restrictions? If so, then there can be no bans on any weapons; private citizens must be allowed to own hand grenades, flamethrowers, tanks, even nukes, if they so choose. On the other hand, if is not an absolute right, then the question is not whether lines can be drawn, but rather, where the lines should be drawn.

I for one am really tired of the rabid RKBA crowd who rear up on their hind legs and squeal every time someone uses the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" when incidents like the recent one in Oakland occur. They always start by saying the term is being misused, and try to bully everyone else into submission by trotting out their superior knowledge of weaponry, while shouting over any discussion of the the easy availability of these sorts of weapons, whatever they are called. They talk about hunting, but won't acknowledge that no one hunts deer with an AK-47.

Does anyone out there really believe that the RKBA is an absolute right and should be 100% unrestricted as to what weapons can be owned by private citizens?

[Pavulon]

37. Ease of availability of the RPG7?

Never seen one at the gun show. Never seen a minigun, even in an armory. You could probably arrange someone to steal weapons from an armory or manufacturer with less trouble than an open market purchase.

[pipoman]

57. Common use for lawful purposes

very simple, the line has been drawn. With literally millions of so called 'assault weapons' in common use for lawful purposes, any AWB will be challenged and thrown out on these grounds.

Face it. The 2nd Amendment allows for individual right to keep and bear arms. You say you are tired of RKBA crowd defending RKBA. Are you also tired of the 1st Amendment crowd trying to defend offensive literature? I am sure many of those who wish to ban books from libraries are sick to death of those who defend edgy publications...fuck them and fuck you.

[X_Digger]

61. Two points..

1. The 2nd amendment was never just about hunting. Red Herring.
2. No mainstream group is proposing doing away with all existing restrictions. Strawman or false dichotomy, can't decide.

I like the line where it is- NFA items heavily restricted, nothing else banned / regulated. If you want to move the line, it's up to you to show that a) the line needs to be moved ("assault weapons" account for <3% of gun homicides), b) you moving the line would have tangible benefit (the '94 AWB only "banned" certain features- remove the features and the "assault weapon" became perfectly legal), and c) you moving the line is constitutional in light of Heller.

btw.. flamethrowers aren't regulated, they're considered agricultural implements.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I'll take a fifty fifty on this

according to the NRA absolutely

Common sense... nope

Then again, I should be able to own a small tactical nuke for home defense

:sarcasm:

[Mike 03]

36. Some of us need a primer on what these guns are and what they are

called, because I'm really ignorant about this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. learned in the school of hard knocks

but on those things on the pictures

Rocket Propelled grenade, usually used for silly things like taking out small APC... no, will probably scratch the paint on an M-1... also effective against armored cars, like VIPs sometimes use (depends on what they used)

The other one was a machine gun... no need for the specifics... rate of fire is VERY HIGH

And the grenade, well iirc that is a RUSSIAN grenade with an effective kill zone of 20 m, and injury of 50

Trust me, I envy you... never had to learn this crap

:-)

Suffice it to say... none of these toys is designed for ahem hunting, though the hand grenade, due to concussion in water, can be used for fishing (yes that is somewhere in a survival course... fish get stunned, you pick them out)

[Pavulon]

45. That grenade is american

not used by the thuggies all that much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Hmm ok, reminded me of the ruskie one I saw

so we are not using the pineapples any more?

[Pavulon]

54. No.

m67 was used in BCT about ten years ago. Not sure if it is still the standard.

[one-eyed fat man]

72. the pineapple was obsolete

in the mid 50's. The grenade pictured is an M26A1, from Viet-Nam era. It differs from the M26 by the addition of the safety clip in addition to the "pin" (just below the pullring which is visible) The M33 was similar but had a yellow band at the base denoting it was also impact fuzed. The M67 is also known the "baseball" grenade and I first used those in Viet Nam in 1970.

One good clue that someone is an old soldier is his car keys and a P-38 are hanging from a grenade pin.

[Pavulon]

43. That is the point, Orwellian language is used to disguise the following:

assault weapon = semi automatic rifle that looks scurry. fires a single shot with a single trigger pull. 100 year old technology. more people are stabbed to death than shot with these. many more. Orwell word
snipers rifle = any bolt action rifle with a scope.
cop killer bullet = no idea, most rifle rounds will defeat body armor. Purpose built rounds with tungsten cores are regulated.
automatic pistol = what the press calls a semi automatic pistol. 100 year old technology, luger did this in ww1.
any glock will be called an automatic pistol.

select fire rifle = what you are issued in the military..fires in 3 shot bursts or in full automatic mode.
Submachine gun, machine pistol = fully automatic weapon firing a pistol round.

machine gun = government classification of any weapon that fires fully automatically or can easily be made fully automatic. Highly regulated since 1934.

[krispos42]

44. Top one is an unguided anti-tank rocket

You hear them referred to as an "RPG", for "rocket propelled grenade". The warhead is a shaped-charge explosive designed to penetrate armor plating, like on a tank or other armored vehicle.


The middle one is a Minigun. 6 barrels spun with an electric motor. Shoots 6,000 rounds a minute of 7.62mm NATO ammo. You can buy one on the civilian market for about $280,000. Of course, it will also cost $4,000 or so a minute to shoot.


Bottom is your basic hand grenade. Pull pin, release the safety lever, and throw. (The grenade, not the pin... :-) ) About 5 seconds later... *boom*

[pipoman]

58. hmmm...

you say:

according to the NRA absolutely

I am sure you can show a cite from the NRA advocating legalization and/or ownership of RPGs, fully automatic weapons and grenades?

Of coarse you can't because they don't support those things except in your tiny mind. The big bad NRA endorsed the 1934 National Firearms Act making ownership of these things very difficult. They also endorsed the Brady Bill requiring gun purchases to be cleared with the National Instant Check System. They oppose so called assault weapons bans because only the ignorant and idiots believe they are effective or serve any purpose.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Thus proving the truth of the old saying...

..."It's not what you don't know, it's what you think you know that ain't so"

I suppose you didn't know that the NRA doesn't believe anything of the sort.
But it sounded to you like something they would support, no?

I haven't rolled my eyes this much since I heard about "Obama's secret jihad"

[Dukkha]

39. they are

If you have $120,000 for the GE Mini gun. I don't know what the RPG would run in todays market. The problem with destructive devices, as they are categorized, is each gernade, rocket, mine, etc requires it's own $200 tax stamp. That a lot of buck for your bang.

[aikoaiko]

40. Would it blow you mine that you could if you had enough money and had approval of the BATFE

:shrug:

[jody]

46. Your poll prompted several posts that show how abysmally ignorant some DUers are about Federal laws,

18 USC CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS and 26 USC CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS.

Suggest you study those laws very carefully and tell us what specific additions you would make to them and justify the efficacy of your proposals in reducing crime.

Have a good day. :hi:

[doc03]

48. That thing in the middle photo is cool I

gotta have one of those.

[NeedleCast]

49. I voted Yes because this is a ridiculous argument

[Two Americas]

53. I don't like guns

Have never owned or used one.

But I do like the Bill of Rights.

Violence is a serious social prob;em. As leftists, we should be working to alleviate the social conditions that are the root cause of social problems, not advocating the right wing punishment model for everything.

The police do not need any more excuses for harassing minority people, and we do not need any more possession and prohibition laws. Those laws corrupt law enforcement, disproportionately impact poor and minority people, create and foster black markets, clog the courts and jails, and promote a police state climate.

We don't like guns, they don't like pot.


...

[JustinBuist]

64. Worth Repeating

Violence is a serious social problem. As leftists, we should be working to alleviate the social conditions that are the root cause of social problems, not advocating the right wing punishment model for everything.

Spot on, though I am OK with using the incarceration as punishment for violent crimes. You rape or murder someone and you go to jail no matter what your social problems are. At that point you're probably too far gone for anybody to really fix you up.

But for non-violent drug dealers, or drug users? There's no reason to lock them up. Just legalize the stuff, regulate it, tax it, and be done with it. You'll remove the position of being a "wealthy" illegal drug dealer right there which, I believe, would entice more people currently living in such environments to stick with their education longer.

Our drug policy isn't reducing the availability of drugs. It's just making criminals out of people that have a basic understanding of capitalism and the laws of supply and demand. In today's world they're criminals but if we legalize it then they're entrepreneurs with no motivation to shoot cops or engage in other violent behavior.

Fix the drug laws and a whole lot of problems go away.

[bigjohnsjr]

79. WHAT????

Police harrassing minorities?? Sounds like you got a bad case of white guilt there Cheech...Go burn another fatty and keep your hands OFF my 2nd ammendment...

[dashrif]

56. UH

RPGs ,GE miniguns and frags oh my :rofl:

[X_Digger]

60. No

Here's a link from a relevant article bodssy22 just posted:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2am.pdf

p34-44 talks about the historical, contextual, and modern definitions of 'arms' in relation to legislation and the 2nd amendment.

Modern definitions of 'arms' tend to exclude more than include. Explosives, mines, grenades, grenade launchers and the like fall under 'destructive devices' and are heavily regulated, just like select fire weapons- not banned, but much hoop jumping and $$ required. Weapons that are above .50 cal are considered 'crew-served' weapons, not something an individual typically uses for self-defense, sport, or hunting.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I voted yes, and I'll explain why.

You cited three weapons, 2 of which are man-portable armaments, the middle option, is a crew served weapon, that would be installed in a fixed position.

Generally the courts have held that crew served weapons are not 'arms'.

The first and third are classified by various rulings as 'destructive devices', not 'arms'. However, if you don't live in certain states, and you pay enough for the fees, taxes, license, and rectal exam, you can own and use them.


I voted yes, because all three should technically be available for posession and sale. In a very extreme, technical sense, they are.

[raimius]

65. Definitions ....

(I voted yes, because I disagree with some current Constitutional Law)
While I believe all of these things should be legal, I perfectly understand why they can be HEAVILY restricted.
I don't want the average civilian to be able to own a nuclear warhead...(an extreme debate point, which also ignores MANY laws related to the sale of military hardware and classified material...but you get the idea)

I would like to se the de facto ban on post 1986 machine-guns lifted. Simply re-open the registry and continue enforcing the NFA, as it was originally written. That would be enough for me, on the topic of MGs and DDs. Also, I would appreciate a easier system for owning suppressors. Suppressed firearms are so much easier on the ears! (and I like my hearing)

[Cobalt-60]

66. I consider the grenade and rocket propelled grenade artillery

pieces, albeit small ones.
As for the chain gun I would say a multi barrel gun with a motor drive
should qualify as a machine gun- As long as they're available for action movies.
There are already laws in place regarding those.
I see the second amendment as referring to firearms up to and including the ones currently used by the army.
It might be new think, but I also find restricting those weapons to semi automatic fire reasonable.
Full auto wastes a lot of ammunition, and a spray is much more likely to cause collateral damage than a single aimed shot.

[one-eyed fat man]

74. Gatling guns

Hand crank guns like the Gatling, Gardener, Hotchkiss and Nordenfelt are not machineguns under the NFA. However, the same guns powered by some external type of motor, electric, pneumatic or hydraulic are machineguns under the law.

[jeepnstein]

70. Yes.

You do have to pay taxes and fill out a few extra papers for the destructive devices.

The minigun would require quite a bit of paperwork. You'd have to be in the business of buying and selling, or manufacturing such arms to have one unless you were able to find one that had been on the NFA books before 1986. It can be done but you open yourself to quite a bit of regulation in order to scratch that itch.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you'll never catch a gang banger filling out NFA forms and paying tax for his "choppa". They ignore the law and are never held accountable for it. Lawful citizens who take the time and trouble to acquire these arms legally are not likely to use them in a crime.

[slackmaster]

71. Yes it does, but all of those items are regulated under the National Firearms Act and subject...

...to additional restrictions by the states.

The NFA survived a Constitutional challenge in 1939 - United States v. Miller.

It's in the public interest to strictly regulate grenade launchers, machine guns, and explosives. They are war materials.

[DonP]

73. These kind of polls do much better in GD where legal ignorance is prized

They elicit comments from people proudly ignorant of any of the facts, details or laws governing guns.

One of my favorites is the always reliable comment, "well, i don't know anything about how guns work but I know these need to be banned" or something along those lines. Geez, if you don't know how something works what makes you think you have a valid opinion on legally restricting it?

They know nothing about Class III rules, the relative cost of items or the availability. They buy wholesale into the Brady lies that you can go to any gun show and buy full auto or (wink, wink) a full auto conversion kit under the table and walk out with them.

Ignorance of an issue you want to comment on is not something to be proud of.

I know, I have two sisters absolutely convinced of it.

[virginia mountainman]

75. Yes....You folks forget..

Our Navies history, is full of "Armed Merchant" ships, owned and operated by civilians, with letters of Marque, they where free to act as warships.

Even as late as WWII, where the Goodyear blimp was given a "Letter of Marque" and was authorized to "wage war" against German U Boats...

So if it legal to own and operate warships, it must be legal to own a mere hand grenade...

[lepus]

81. I replied "Yes" for the same reason

Our founding father's did not want a standing army but saw the need for weapons. Not only the small arms that most people held, but even cannons and warships that a few of the richer people kept. They did not want the government to be more powerful than the people.

I do not think our founding fathers would have liked nuclear weapons in private hands, or the government's for that matter. I doubt that they would have had issues with private citizen's having the right to keep any weapon that the government used.

[scrinmaster]

80. Yes. You can actually own all three, legally.

I think you're required to have some sort of armory to store the explosives in, and the minigun would have had to be registered prior to 1986.