Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

It shouldn't require a HS diploma to grasp the meaning of this:



But apparently it does.

 

I am aware that it is legal under special circumstances to own fully automatic firearms and military equipment.

I am not here to make claims to the positive or the negative, I am here to learn from the perspective of others. It would be silly for me to take a stand to the positive or the negative based upon my current level of ignorance on the topic.

 

his posts remind me of "Captain Wilkins" in the movie the Patriot.

 

Its meaning is very clear - it is a red herring offered by the anti-gun left because of its inability to put forth an argument for its position that doe snot stand on fallacious arguments from emotion, ignorance and or dishonesty.

Please -- continue to prove this point.

 

If by "special circumstances" you mean a background check and a $200 transfer tax, then yes.

 

Are you OK with a mandatory background check and a tax?

 

Nope.
My point was there are no "special circumstances" that allow someone to own a class-III firearm -- all you need to do is walk into the store, fill out the forms,, wait, pay the tax, take delivery.

 

As for special circumstances, are you saying that it is legal for me to purchase a fully automatic (not semiautomatic) BAR for home defense and I can legally use it in the event of a home invasion and I will not get in trouble with the police? If yes do you have source citation to support that?

 

I would not use a BAR for home defense.
I prefer a pistol or carbine in semiauto, careful ammo choice and relatively slow well placed shots.

 

I would prefer a submachine gun as the penetration is less and perhaps use subsonic rounds, a silencer and burst fire. But none the less is it legal for me to purchase a fully automatic or burst fire firearm for home defense, and I can legally use it in the event of a home invasion and I will not get in trouble with the police? To the best of my knowledge the answer is no.

 

No you will get into trouble ?
Or No, you will not get into trouble ?

Once you own a legally purchased class lll
For example; a transferable M-16A2, legal to own in your State, you will not get into
trouble , if you defend yourself with one.

 

Can I use one of these for home defense?

 

No = illegal.

Interesting, just looked it up. So now I must wounder why it is that there are 500k fully automatic firearms in the USA yet I cannot recall of a single instance of a mass shooter using a legally purchased fully automatic firearm. Thoughts on why that is?

 

Simple, law abiding owners of those firearms.
Look up the many organized events every year.
The record of law abiding owners of those firearms speaks for itself.

 

People who own Full auto firearms don't use them for crime and there is an easy explanation.
First off, these folk have had to jump through government hoops ie.. background checks, paperwork...... then pay money for the tax stamp and wait a long time to get their license.
Then they have to buy the firearm. 20 -30 thousand dollars in most cases.

People with nefarious intent do not want to go through this kind of scrutiny from the feds or go to this kind of expense.

 

Actually, legal class III firearms owners have indeed used their firearms for defensive purposes. In some cases there were no legal ramifications outside of the usual post-shooting rigmarole, and in some cases their use of their weapons led to overzealous prosecutors trying to "make an example of them" even though the shootings themselves were justified. YMMV, depending on the political realities of your specific jurisdiction.

 

THEY DID. You don't grasp the idioms and dialect (for lack of a better term) of the day, that doesn't mean its not translatable FFS!

 

the 2a says exactly bupkiss about during war. Its a right of the people, full stop.

Yes, it did. Is there a point here?

 

Us v Miller: Any ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT is protected by the core 2A right.
**** a silly villian police officer, I get an M4 and hand-grenades according to the 2a.

 

Do you not know what a prefatory clause is? The language has rules, those commas you see mean something. FFS! What do they teach you kids in school these days?

 

Prefatory clauses explain but do not modify operative clauses. Fail in toto.

 

The same unconstitutionally expanded power which makes a farmer growing wheat on his land to feed his own cows "unduly effecting interstate commerce".

Go read the committee notes on NFA from the 30's. They talk about this issue and freely admit, multiple times, that they CANNOT do a total ban under either a tax or commerce or both theory as it would be unconstitutional.
They also freely admit that the tax on NFA is intended to price these items out of the reach of minorities.

 

Assuming you are able to legally buy a gun and your use of the firearm was in actual self-defense, yes.

There are no laws that prohibit you from doing so.

 

Do you have source citation to support this?

 

If the submachine gun is in a caliber greater than .380ACP it is more dangerous in an occupied dwelling than an AR-15 in .223 caliber according to FBI tests.

And it *IS* legal for you to purchase a fully auto or burst fire firearm for home defense. And you can legally use it and you will not get in trouble with the police.