Federal judge tosses Kansas machine gun possession case on Second Amendment grounds

a reply to: network dude

Finally something I can disagree with you on.

While I agree there may be some accidents and perhaps even some nefarious actions taken, to make it into a sudden problem doesn't seem to ring out in the statistics.

After the newness wears off, I'd expect nothing else to come of it.

I'll take dangerous freedom over any other "safe' society anyway.

a reply to: network dude

I recall some children have been killed at shooting ranges when given full auto small arms due to this very issue. Responsibility is absolutely necessary. No matter how many regulations and laws get made though, there will always be irresponsible dip #s.

a reply to: network dude

I can certainly understand where you are coming from, BUT, I'll put my perspective on this. Would you just hand a kid, or any novice shooter, a gun and just let them go? I wouldn't.

I can recall how it was done when I was at basic many moons ago. We strictly operated on semi until we had qualified. Then we were given 5 rounds to load into the magazine and fire auto, then 7, then 10. This went on until the shooter was acclimated to the rise and could compensate.

Now, how this translates to regulation I'm not sure. Perhaps compulsory service isn't such a bad idea as it would allow for proper training in these matters in addition to demonstrating what it actually means to serve through sacrifice.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Justoneman
While I think the decision is a good one, this isn't Red Dawn.

Your military has machine guns and a whole lot more. You make it sound like if private citizens don't have machine guns anybody can just walk in and take over the US.

Admiral Nakamoto stated this after Pearl Harbor. But it could be Red Dawn.

" we have awakened a sleeping giant... there is a gun hiding behind every blade of grass".


What is it like to live in a nation when your neighboring nations are going to attack their people and it is possible it could spill over to your area, and would you prefer to be able to defend yourself as well as possible?

I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

I appreciate the discourse. I don't know if my thinking is out of line or not. I know more than I should about the mechanisms that exists to make this change, and it would open up a pandora's box that might end up closing more tightly guarded things.

Just imagine, full auto is kosher. The small adaptor that can be made by 3D printers in about 30 minutes becomes all the rage. Stupid kids who made some lowers when 80% was all the rage, they assemble some AR's and we have gang warfare on steroids. The public is outraged. So they collectively decide that banning ALL assault weapons is prudent. Perhaps even a constitutional amendment if the situation could be framed and advertised well enough. So we get everything we wanted, and then all of the sudden, we lose what we have been fighting to keep.

I just think everyone needs to talk about this, think about this, and really put in the time to understand ALL of it, before we open that box.

And I'm not afraid to be wrong as much as I am to be right on this.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

a reply to: network dude

I can appreciate a pragmatic approach to dangerous things.

Let me ask you this to see if it makes the point.

Which specific entity within government would you trust to categorize speech.

Who decides what is hate speech?
Who decides what is acceptable?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

I wouldn't. I think it's perfectly fine to approach such a profound issue with cautious optimism. To this day, if I'm training a non/novice shooter I'll teach them the same way I did my kids by using a paternalistic approach.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

I wouldn't. I think it's perfectly fine to approach such a profound issue with cautious optimism. To this day, if I'm training a non/novice shooter I'll teach them the same way I did my kids by using a paternalistic approach.

me, of 20 years ago was impulsive and cock sure of myself. I have changed, and realize how little I actually do know.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

I'm a fan education.

It should be taught in schools.

Now there's nothing wrong with saying gun ranges banning full auto use. Nothing wrong with gun shop owners refusing to sell them.

The govt doing the infringing however, big problem.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: network dude

I can appreciate a pragmatic approach to dangerous things.

Let me ask you this to see if it makes the point.

Which specific entity within government would you trust to categorize speech.

Who decides what is hate speech?
Who decides what is acceptable?

speech should be absolute, you can say anything you want, and be free to do so. What you aren't free from, is the repercussions of what you said. Like going up to the big dude, and telling him what a dickface he is. When he smashes you, try not to look surprised.

And I have no idea how or who should regulate this issue, I'm just concerned about the aftermath. A pitfall of forward thinking.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

I wouldn't. I think it's perfectly fine to approach such a profound issue with cautious optimism. To this day, if I'm training a non/novice shooter I'll teach them the same way I did my kids by using a paternalistic approach.

me, of 20 years ago was impulsive and cock sure of myself. I have changed, and realize how little I actually do know.

20, 30, hell, 40 years ago I felt that if the government can have nukes I should too. I still feel that way, nothing has changed in my core beliefs. I also, as always, feel that one must accept the responsibility that comes with having those tools.

Well regulated militia is another key to how we should approach this. I see the drawbacks. Freedom to do things come with responsibility. The old point made was giving up freedom for safety to paraphrase is dangerous to freedom. It makes it a polite society when at first they want to force folks to be nice to people by being mean to some over bloated ideas like "hate speech" that is actually just plain old fact observations. We see how that type of approach essentially shuts down conversations on things that need to be said so we can avoid repeating the errors of that day.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

I wouldn't. I think it's perfectly fine to approach such a profound issue with cautious optimism. To this day, if I'm training a non/novice shooter I'll teach them the same way I did my kids by using a paternalistic approach.

me, of 20 years ago was impulsive and cock sure of myself. I have changed, and realize how little I actually do know.

20, 30, hell, 40 years ago I felt that if the government can have nukes I should too. I still feel that way, nothing has changed in my core beliefs. I also, as always, feel that one must accept the responsibility that comes with having those tools.

while I agree in principal, I have also witnessed just how incredibly stupid some people are. that is what scares me.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: network dude

I can appreciate a pragmatic approach to dangerous things.

Let me ask you this to see if it makes the point.

Which specific entity within government would you trust to categorize speech.

Who decides what is hate speech?
Who decides what is acceptable?

speech should be absolute, you can say anything you want, and be free to do so. What you aren't free from, is the repercussions of what you said. Like going up to the big dude, and telling him what a dickface he is. When he smashes you, try not to look surprised.

And I have no idea how or who should regulate this issue, I'm just concerned about the aftermath. A pitfall of forward thinking.

Two thing that can never be taken back, a harsh word and a bullet.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
I think some folks may be missing the point of the second amendment.

Not only is your right of keeping and bearing arms not to be infringed, it's specifically to keep The People on an even footing with ANY standing militaries capabilities.

Id feel so much better about all that if people trained like they should, and had confidence and safety with regard to something of this magnitude. And just so everyone knows, yes, I'd have kicked old me's ass about 20 years ago if I heard me saying sh!t like this.

I wouldn't. I think it's perfectly fine to approach such a profound issue with cautious optimism. To this day, if I'm training a non/novice shooter I'll teach them the same way I did my kids by using a paternalistic approach.

me, of 20 years ago was impulsive and cock sure of myself. I have changed, and realize how little I actually do know.

20, 30, hell, 40 years ago I felt that if the government can have nukes I should too. I still feel that way, nothing has changed in my core beliefs. I also, as always, feel that one must accept the responsibility that comes with having those tools.

while I agree in principal, I have also witnessed just how incredibly stupid some people are. that is what scares me.

Lol, my credo, "A person can be a genius, people are fecking retarded"

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: network dude

I can appreciate a pragmatic approach to dangerous things.

Let me ask you this to see if it makes the point.

Which specific entity within government would you trust to categorize speech.

Who decides what is hate speech?
Who decides what is acceptable?

speech should be absolute, you can say anything you want, and be free to do so. What you aren't free from, is the repercussions of what you said. Like going up to the big dude, and telling him what a dickface he is. When he smashes you, try not to look surprised.

And I have no idea how or who should regulate this issue, I'm just concerned about the aftermath. A pitfall of forward thinking.

Allow me some artistic liberty with your analogy?

Big dude is a sweaty commie. Little one is your wife. She's informing him that communism is bad mmmkay?

He moves to exact those repercussions.


Question is, do you care what action is in the firearm your wife is carrying?

a reply to: Justoneman
Nobody even knows if that quote is real. Seems to be from an old film, so maybe there was poetic licence involved.

Either way, there is still a gun hiding behind every blade of grass in the US.

What is it like to live in a nation when your neighboring nations are going to attack their people and it is possible it could spill over to your area, and would you prefer to be able to defend yourself as well as possible?

The NG steps in, with automatic weapons and more. If things escalate, then you bring in the military.

If it makes you feel safe that you can fend off a few guys wanting to pull off a home invasion, that is fine, but don't act like you actually need it to repel an attack from a foreign nation.

a reply to: daskakik

Have you ever heard of Afghanistan?

Vietnam?