Machine Guns Aren't Protected By The Second Amendment, Court Rules

I have no anger with religion. What you find irrelevant, is irrelevant.

What the Declaration does not do, is give the individual citizen the right to take up arms against his government simply for some perceived wrong. The problem is, that because our break from Britain resulted in a war, the right thinks that the only way to replace a government is through armed insurrection. This mistake goes further by assuming the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to exist is so the citizen can take up arms against his own government. It goes even further by ignoring that the Militia is, by definition, regulated by the government, and therefore becomes part of the government. That the free State refers to the government, and defense of the free State is the defense from outside forces, or internal forces that would bring down the free State. If you read the supporting documents of the time, whenever the State is mentioned, it is always in reference to the government.

There are many theories that exist as to why the 2nd Amendment exists. They range from the right view of armed insurrection against some mythical tyrannical government, to southern slave holders wanting an armed force to keep the slaves in check. All have about as much supporting documentation, depending on which letters you read and where you fall on the political spectrum. I believe it exists as an extension of the British Common Law that prohibited Parliament from denying ownership of guns used for hunting and self defense. It was put there so that those who feared a strong central government could be assured that no one would take there guns away, for whatever reason.

Whatever your particular favorite reason is, there is one thing that is true, and irrefutable, that no Right granted by the Constitution is absolute. The most notable restriction is when the exercise of your right harms another, or could bring harm to another. The rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness trump all rights contained within the Constitution and the Amendments to the Constitution. If that means that you cannot own a specific gun, or type of gun, while many others are still available, then all I can say is suck it up, buttercup.

SGT Edward Wilcox - There are none so blind as a fool like me who would waste another beat of his heart on this "conversation". Enjoy your life of bliss. Best

CPT Jack Durish - Thank you, Sir, for finally agreeing that your position was wrong.

SGT Edward Wilcox - Well that's a disappointing response! I fully expected you to have referred to the social & political philosophers whose writings formed the basis for the 2nd Amendment. SMH

I agree with everything you said, with one exception. 30 years of service and not once did I fire an M16 that was not capable of fully automatic fire. Every time I went to the range, I could have, if I chose to suffer the consequences, flip the selector switch to AUTO and empty the magazine with a single pull of the trigger. It is only the A2 variant(or maybe the A3), that allowed only 3 round bursts.

Both the A4 and M4 are single shot or burst. Only the A1 was produced with an automatic option. As I said, I believe some current versions have been modified for specific purposes but not for general issue.

Well that's even a more disappointing response than the last time! Before waxing prophetic about its meaning, referrence the social & political philosophers whose writings formed the basis for the 2nd Amendment. If the Royal Army in 1774 had possessed select fire weapons, we would have had them as well. If we hadn't possessed them, we would have lost with or without the French & Spanish. Do you speak with an "English" accent? You don't have one do you! That means the weapons we fought them with were equal to theirs. An officer needs to "think clearly" if he is to be of any use to his troops in combat operations.

I suspect those of that ilk are so inarticulate that they are incapable of forming and expressing an explanation of their viewpoint on the matter.

I was going to "down" you, but decided that would be a d*ck move on my part. Sarcasm that can be detected in a written response does your argument no good and p*sses off the rest of us. Food for thought.