Family Research Center Shooting

[Pinky]

What's the procedure for posting images on this board?  I've got a few Revolutionary War paintings to share with you Stephen.

I suppose you are going to show paintings of the muskets used in the War, correct?  I think we can all agree that Muskets were used in the War.  But I wonder if you think being 'armed' only means 'posessing a gun'.

No, I believe it includes guns.

[NotNow]

Again, when you can show proof that the founding fathers did not mean GUNS in their definition of arms, then we will talk.  Until then, this is just another stupid StephenDare! diversion.  SHOW PROOF WITH YOUR WORK.

[NotNow]

I'm shocked StephenDare!.  Usually by now you would have just made something up.  You have already misused examples and made false assumptions.   Isn't it your MO to just throw crap out and see what sticks?

[Pinky]

What's the procedure for posting images on this board?  I've got a few Revolutionary War paintings to share with you Stephen.

I suppose you are going to show paintings of the muskets used in the War, correct?  I think we can all agree that Muskets were used in the War.  But I wonder if you think being 'armed' only means 'posessing a gun'.

No, I believe it includes guns.

but you would agree that guns arent specifically singled out as the instrument that defines being 'armed'?

And it seems like you agree that any developments since that era are subject to scrutiny as to whether the weapon is included in the reasonable definition of being armed.  Am I wrong on that subject?  Or do you really agree that a dirty nuclear bomb would be constitutionally protected under the second amendment?

I agree that guns aren't specifically singled out, but contend that they are included, just as swords, sabers and axes were.  I know for certain that they were among the "arms" of the day, and that they are most certainly not specifically excluded.

And no, I do not believe that the second amendment gives one the right to possess nuclear weapons, nor do I equate "nuclear weapons" with whatever class of firearm you're intending to ask me to object to by your use this rhetorical question. 

[Pinky]

well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

[Pinky]

For the purposes of the second amendment, do you think it would be possible to outlaw guns entirely, but require that citizens be trained in sword fighting and still fulfill the mandate that the right of the people to be armed?

Now keep in mind that I am not advocating this position, merely asking the question in the theoretical.

I would have to say no.  The Constitution does not make any distinction among the type of arms that the people have a right to keep and bear. 

[Pinky]

well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

you mean, like a cannon?  (also available at the time)

Sure.  Cannons are fair game if one is a strict constitutionalist.  Can you address my question now?

[Pinky]

well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

you mean, like a cannon?  (also available at the time)

Sure.  Cannons are fair game if one is a strict constitutionalist.  Can you address my question now?

No, I do not agree that the constitution protects a specific technology, but instead it protects a specific principle.

Are cannons legal for personal use?

Yes Stephen, they are. 

[Pinky]

well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

you mean, like a cannon?  (also available at the time)

Sure.  Cannons are fair game if one is a strict constitutionalist.  Can you address my question now?

No, I do not agree that the constitution protects a specific technology, but instead it protects a specific principle.

Are cannons legal for personal use?

No Stephen - it doesn't only address the principle of the right to defend oneself, it cites that right in the granting of the specific permission to keep and bear arms to that end.

[Pinky]

Actually, the claim that they are legal is a stretch and untrue in the spirit of the question.  Antiques may be kept, but not as a weapon.

The pertinent Code:


26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(f) "The term destructive device means

1) any explosive, incendiary or poison gas

A) bomb

B) grenade

C) rocket having propellant charge of more than four ounces

D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce

E) mine, or

F) similar device

2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of a explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary or his delegate finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term 'destructive device' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685 or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes."

Secretary in the above refers to the Secretary of the Treasury, unless it says otherwise. The fee for the FFL to deal in DD's is $1000 a year (type 09), and one must also be a special taxpayer, add another $500 a year. Making them requires a different $1000 a year FFL (type 10), although an individual may make them on a Form1, tax paid ($200). Transfers require the whole routine just like full-autos; a form 4, $200 tax, a law enforcement sign-off, pictures and fingerprints. Most class 3 dealers don't have the $1000 a year FFL to deal in DD's. Note that antiques are excluded. Thus the definition of an antique NFA firearm is important.

26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(g) "Antique firearm.-The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replicas thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed  ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade."

Some examples of what is a DD and what is not:

Muzzle loading cannon - NOT, as it is an antique design, unless it has some special features allowing breech loading.

Cannons, as you quoted in your response, are not Destructive Devices, and therefore are not covered by the prohibition you cite.  A cannon, which uses separate loading components (separate ball, powder and primer) are technically black-powder guns.  Big-ass muzzleloaders in essence.  The prohibitions you cite are against breech loading artillery pieces, which fire a shell. 

[Pinky]

Because they are not legally used as 'arms'.  Once they do become 'arms' they become illegal.

Is it your intention to semanticize your way through an entire evening?

You asked if cannons were legal.  They are.  Do you intend to parse and use hyperbolic exaggeration all night?

[Pinky]

Because they are not legally used as 'arms'.  Once they do become 'arms' they become illegal.

Is it your intention to semanticize your way through an entire evening?

You asked if cannons were legal.  They are.  Do you intend to parse and use hyperbolic exaggeration all night?

apparently one will have to parse your answers since they seem to be so ambiguous as to need clarification.  Cannons are not covered by the second amendment.  Would you agree on that point?

No.  The second amendment makes no exclusion of cannons, which BTW, are legal.  Nanny nanny boo boo.  Now I gotta crash so I can wake up in the morning and take my kid to school. 

[Pinky]

Good Night.  I look forward to resuming the discussion.

Mutual.  In the meantime, go polish your cannon.  They're legal you know...   

Cheers.

[BridgeTroll]

Kids... your going about this all wrong.  Rather than focusing on the second amendment... we should look at the entire Bill of Rights.  Certainly there are other rights we can...er...um..."modify" to address this problem.

[BridgeTroll]

Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?