How The Federal Government Nullified the Second Amendment to 'Ban' Automatic firearms
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Popeye
  • 1 Post By john9001

Thread: How The Federal Government Nullified the Second Amendment to 'Ban' Automatic firearms

  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    52,045

    Default How The Federal Government Nullified the Second Amendment to 'Ban' Automatic firearms

    William Sullivan
    August 14, 2019


    There are two competing theories being debated today about American individuals’ “right” to gun ownership.

    The original theory is that Americans enjoy a fundamental right to self-defense, in order to preserve one’s person and property against any neighbors or government agents who might act against one’s individual liberty. This is a natural right that predates our government’s formation, and was therefore enshrined in the Constitution by some very forward-thinking liberals of their time. In the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of the Second Amendment:

    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.

    It should not be difficult for anyone with a passing grasp of the English language to understand that it is the “right of the People” that is protected in that sentence, and it is clearly not the expression of a peculiar power owned by the newly-founded centralized government created by our Constitution. Such straightforward, simple language in our Bill of Rights was actually [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] by Samuel Adams and John Hancock to accommodate the antifederalists at the Massachusetts Convention of 1788 and to avoid confusion about the new government’s limited powers, meant to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that “the Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

    Adams thought far too much of future generations, clearly, because a second, competing theory has emerged within the last 100 years which suggests that gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege granted by the government, and the kinds of firearms allowed to peaceable citizens depends on what neighbors and government agents would deem allowable at any particular point in time.

    The latter is entirely incoherent when contextualized with the words the Second Amendment, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s the position that is broadly recognized as truth for most Americans. Today, it’s just natural to assume that the federal government has the right to curtail gun ownership of this gun or that one among “peaceable citizens” if the federal government feels that some guns are too dangerous for law-abiding citizens to own.

    This is the progressives’ magic trick, and some Americans fall for it due to a simple deficiency in human nature. For example, Chris Cuomo of CNN recently [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that “[t]here was no individual right” in the Second Amendment even “contemplated” until Antonin Scalia inferred the “individual right” in the Heller v. District of Columbia decision.

    Winston Churchill once observed the reason why Chris Cuomo would say something so patently stupid, and why such stupidity might so commonly be believed by others. Churchill [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that, for human beings, “five years is a lot. Twenty years is the horizon for most people. Fifty years is antiquity.”

    In the reality that existed long before Chris Cuomo’s [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of life, however, was 146 years of American history between the ratification of the Second Amendment and America’s very first sweeping federal gun law. In 1934, the National Firearms Act (NFA), was jammed into law by legislators.

    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 [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] to tax, not upon its ability to restrict ownership of firearms.


    1941 ad for taxed-but-legal Thompson Submachine Guns ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

    This was a roundabout infringement upon Second Amendment rights that is somehow still championed by conservatives looking to score sensibility points with the left, and aligning with Cuomo’s position.

    “Machine guns were outlawed because there was no need that justified the risk. Was that wrong, too?” Cuomo asks.

    The short answer is, yes, that was wrong, too -- if the Second Amendment is the measure. And to be clear, the Second Amendment is the only sentence in the Constitution where an individual right to firearms is addressed.

    Yet we find several conservatives aligning with Cuomo, in principle, suggesting that automatic weapons, or “machine guns,” have understandably been banned since ancient times (for us), and it was somehow justified as within the government’s right to do so. For example, Josh Hammer [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] at the Daily Wire that, “automatic weapons are already (for all intents and purposes) banned” under the NFA, so new gun control measures on a “cosmetically amorphous” semi-automatic “assault weapons” should not be needed.

    That statement not only concedes the left’s position that the federal government had the right to levy such infringements upon the individual right to gun ownership in the first place, but more importantly, it’s not entirely accurate.

    I’ll assume that Hammer knows his history, and that by “all intents and purposes,” he means that the NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one. It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.

    In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986. It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.

    If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video* of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.” It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress -- and that’s saying something.

    It has been [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.” That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came. And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.

    If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.

    In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace. It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.

    Yet today, Chris Cuomo can confidently suggest that the Second Amendment wasnever understood by Americans to protect an individual right to gun ownership? History and logic could not be clearer in proving him either a fool or a liar.

    I don’t know who’s worthy of more derision. Chris Cuomo and his counterparts who are demanding that the federal government nullify the Second Amendment’s original purpose, or the cheering rabble who can’t bring themselves to investigate the easily understood lies that are being presented to them.


    *




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Last edited by Popeye; 08-14-2019 at 06:57 PM.
    Wag likes this.
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    western PA
    Posts
    1,010

    Default

    Automatic weapons are not "baned", they are just very expensive and hard to get. You have to get a $200 tax stamp from the ATF for each gun which can take up to a year, pass more background checks and that is just to put a chill on buying one.
    Wag likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Very well written piece.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john9001 View Post
    Automatic weapons are not "baned", they are just very expensive and hard to get. You have to get a $200 tax stamp from the ATF for each gun which can take up to a year, pass more background checks and that is just to put a chill on buying one.
    Not to mention you also have to have special license and have your home and area you intend to store said weapon inspected by ATF agent. I believe you also get a yearly inspection to ensure your still storing it properly etc.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimp View Post
    Not to mention you also have to have special license and have your home and area you intend to store said weapon inspected by ATF agent. I believe you also get a yearly inspection to ensure your still storing it properly etc.
    Right (sort of - stamp, not license)
    Wrong
    Wrong

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john9001 View Post
    Automatic weapons are not "baned", they are just very expensive and hard to get. You have to get a $200 tax stamp from the ATF for each gun which can take up to a year, pass more background checks and that is just to put a chill on buying one.
    +1

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •