Thomas Jefferson on the Bump Stock Ban: Dangerous Freedom Over Peaceful Slavery

Thomas Jefferson gun rights dangerous liberty quiet servitude

courtesy cnn.com

In light of the bump stock ban becoming official, here is a friendly reminder from a founding father:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. – Thomas Jefferson, first draft of the Virginia Constitution

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. – Our nation’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, 1787

In Jefferson’s original letter to James Madison he used the Latin:

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

It has also been translated as, “I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.”

 

 

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Here’s a proposition; go ahead and ban bumpstocks but open the registry on machine guns. Deal?

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Well, if all the Gomers around here who think they’d like to enter into the Class III realm would really pony up and pay the price the Feds would probably have a bump (chuckle) in the amount of money coming in to them. Supressors were taking about a year, wonder how long to go all Class III?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Not that you can bargain with the other side in good faith, but my thought was that ‘simulated automatic fire’ could be treated like fully automatic fire, but the bureaucratic red tape would be the only issue, not the artificially limited supply of the product. Effectively putting full auto back to the way it was from 1934-1986.

        The fix for the delays would be to make it like the NICS check, although they’d have to give the ATF more than 3 days. Maybe give them 90 days and if they can’t find grounds for rejection you’re automatically approved. Maybe we can get that through the Demoncratic house next year?

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          @Gov. William J Le Petomane…you’re a FUDD. Willing to give up someone else’s rights to a firearm configuration you don’t like just so that you can have the one that you do like. And banning/regulating ‘simulated automatic fire’ is the same as banning/regulating cosmetic assault weapon features….stupid.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Willing to give up someone else’s rights to a firearm configuration you don’t like just so that you can have the one that you do like.”

          I’m willing to give up your right to own a gun in return for a complete, eternal, irreversible ban on abortion.

          The theory that you need a gun to overthrow a rogue government is theory; abortion is government sponsored murder of the defenseless. And it is not theory/speculation.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          You’re delusional, Baldwin. You seem to think that if you pout and stomp your feet that others will see the 2nd Amendment they way you (and those who wrote it) see it. How about you walk the walk and build some full auto AR15s and take them to the range. Maybe sell a few and see where the 2nd Amendment gets you.

          For the record I’m not in the market for either a bumpstock or a full auto.

        4. avatar Baldwin says:

          @Gov. William J Le Petomane…Ultimately we’re all in the same boat….and incrementalism is sinking our boat. If you want me to have your back, you need to have mine. Not one inch.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Not one inch.”

          It would be illuminating to learn how you plan to effectuate that.

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I’d look at that like giving up an inch and taking a foot. The only reason anybody buys a bumpstock is because full auto is so expensive because the registry has been closed for over 3 decades.

    2. avatar L says:

      Sounds good on paper but avoids the fact that even after the registration period they are still legislating by interpretation and the fact that it’s so incredibly vague (belt loops banned, blocks of wood with a nail in it banned, fingers banned, gravity banned) and it’s a hard task to write it correctly because the presumption from the start (bump stock = MG conversion) was bullshit.

      Wars were fought for less than this.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        “Wars were fought for less than this.” Can you name a few?

        1. avatar Big Sky says:

          The US/Iraq war.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          How about the American Revolution for one. We shit bricks over a small tax on paper and tea, but are okay with forking over almost half of our salary to the gov in some states.

        3. avatar L says:

          Kroglikepie hit the nail on the head, that is exactly what I was alluding to.

        4. avatar L says:

          Would also like to add this: we are currently in a two-party political system where neither are gun-friendly. This isn’t new either, the Republican party has been screwing us over for decades. The massive amount of gun owners have absolutely no representation in government and are having their rights taken away with zero say. Sound familiar?

        5. avatar Craig in IA says:

          US-Iraq was over less than the ban on bumpstocks??? We’ll have to see about that one- there’s still time for you to get out there and start shooting, I guess. If you’re planning that, let me know so I can make some popcorn.

          The actual organized shooting in the American Revolution was over a move to confiscate the store of powder and ball, not firearms.

          So, lets get back to listing the wars that were fought over less than banning bump stocks…

        6. avatar L says:

          @Craig in IA
          It’s a little concerning that all you can do while the government strips you of your rights is sit back, eat popcorn and watch.

        7. avatar Thomas Jefferson says:

          Someone needs to reread the Declaration of Independence and correct their revised American history brainwashing.

          The so-called main reason we revolted, “no taxation without representation”, was No.17 of 27 major complaints (“Facts” in the Declaration) against King George III.

          We had sixteen more important causes leading to revolution, despite the opinion of modern and compulsory education.

        8. avatar Dev says:

          So Fudd in IA is admitting that the Revolutionary War was fought over gun accessories and not guns themselves.

        9. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “It’s a little concerning that all you can do while the government strips you of your rights is sit back, eat popcorn and watch.” I’ll eat popcorn while I watch you and your little “revolution” put down on the nightly news, and I never watch the “nightly news”. I’ve been at this since 1971 locally, statewide and nationally and if you and others haven’t figured out yet you need to do some outreach and bring more people on board or you’re literally pissing into the wind, you and others would just rather sit around and complain. All of this tough (and anonymous) talk does nothing with the majority of people who could help the cause, it turns more of them off. So- you’re left with your little one-man revolt. Have fun sitting over there in the corner of your basement.

          I’m still waiting for my list of wars, too.

        10. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “So Fudd in IA is admitting that the Revolutionary War was fought over gun accessories and not guns themselves.”

          Stating facts. The hyperbole makes you look like the old Floyd R, Turbo character to the majority of people who can do some critical thinking.

        11. avatar L says:

          @Craig in IA
          I have a plan to protect the rights I am very quickly losing to daddy gov, and that’s starting with helping with the legal fight that is starting up. I’m unsure if we will win this fight, and if we lose there will be country-wide confiscation which is the government using force.

          The only way to stop force is with an equal and opposing force. What exactly is your plan when they are given the green light to come for your 11+ rd magazines next? How about your semiautos? How about any rifled bore? How about shotguns with less than 2+1? You’re gonna need a lot of popcorn.

        12. avatar L says:

          more than 2+1*

        13. avatar Son of Liberty says:

          Kroglikepie – the Tea Party in 1773 was a reaction to the Tea Act which gave the Brittish East India Company Tea a monopoly. The price was actually lower than tea being sold since 1767 when the Townshend Revenue Act put taxes on teas originally. Were we happy about the tax? No. But the Sons of Liberty had enough when the Brittish were undercutting colonial tea merchants and forcing us to only buy Brittish East India Company Tea.

          Don’t tread on me.

        14. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “I have a plan to protect the rights I am very quickly losing…” BFD. Does your plan include others? Exactly how do you intend on applying equal or greater force to the Federal, State or even your local town PD if you can’t stop being totally obstinate and try to convince others in your field of influence that all Constitutional rights and liberties are still relavant today? All sorts of people had “a plan”, David Koresh certainly did, so did Jim Jones, among others. There is a process to make political change in this country and it’s also found in the same document that contains the Second Amendment. The main obstacle for a lot of wannabees around here is that it takes a lot of critical thinking, coalition-building with legislators of both sides of the aisles, networking with other liberty-minded groups and people, legal and historical study (beyond repeating FF quotes that probably were only learned because someone posted them here), and patience to make things work. Reading the posts around here it’s obvious that the majority just don’t seem to have a clue where to start except parrot crap from GOA, NAGR, etc., even though they have never really had any victories or claims beyond sheer rhetoric.

          Back during the semiauto “ban” no one came for my 30 round mags, my (at the time) 4 AR 15s, my FALs, my M1-A, my Glock 23, or anything else, and they could still be purchased openly at gun shows and stores around my state. I was in the thick of that legislative battle in the 1990s and it appears we won long before the sunset provision went into affect. You live in IL, CA or NJ? Move, there are many good reasons to far beyond the Second Amendment.

          Bump stocks were a phenomenon that surfaced well after nearly all regulation of automatic weapons were in place and initially I (and seriously), a lot of others couldn’t believe ATF would not ban them in the first place. So- in the mean time, why not put the thing in a vice, drill a hole through it and pin it so it is no longer a “bump stock”, then see if your lawsuit works out, which it won’t. Then continue on wasting your ammo with a belt loop, or even floating your cheap AK forward and using your middle finger on the trigger if it makes you feel tough. Besides, can’t you figure out how to convert an AR into FA if you’re willing to break other laws? I mean- if you really have a plan? Not like you’re trying to make an atomic bomb.

          Oh, and that being called a FUDD? Boy that one really hurts- especially considering those that can’t come up with better. Looney Tunes for certain…

          And finally: WHERE’S MY LIST OF WARS STARTED OVER LESS THAN BUMPSTOCKS???? That’s what started this exchange, and neither you nor anyone else has bothered to support your claim. Hell, even Helen of Troy was flesh and blood…

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You made an excellent, if unintended, justification for shutting down the blog. Nice work.

          Now, what’s your plan, and how well are you succeeding?

          The revolution is already here. The opposition is about 8% of the population (voters, maybe). They are organized, scripted, cohesive, determined. They are hyper active, and they are winning. Politicians operate on the theory of survival at any cost, so the 8% looks like the vast majority of the public. Politicians vote accordingly.

          POTG are always in the reactive mode, disorganized, leaderless, hyper critical of each other, principled, incoherent, busy with responsible lives, have no billionaires funding aggressive tactics in defense of the constitution. Typical evil v. good. Evil will win until one day it doesn’t. The end.

        16. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “You made an excellent, if unintended, justification for shutting down the blog. Nice work.

          Now, what’s your plan, and how well are you succeeding?”

          Not sure to whom you are responding- the plan in quotes refers to “L”s; mine involves using the legislative processes outlined in the Constitution/BORs, where I would seek to remain if at all possible.

          Not sure how I am justifying shutting down this blog, either. I’m advocating using legal means to secure what is necessary, not some sort of armed insurrection. I think I’ve written well enough above.

        17. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “mine involves using the legislative processes outlined in the Constitution/BORs, where I would seek to remain if at all possible.”

          “I’m advocating using legal means to secure what is necessary, not some sort of armed insurrection.”

          You were critical of posters here who only plan to rant and rave, having no other plan to actually change the culture. You posit that complainers should agitate against lazy politicians. This is exactly the plan that has us where we are. Playing by the rules is not a winning strategy. The leftists/statists don’t play by any “rules” that are firm, always moving the goal posts, and lying, cheating, stealing whenever possible. Playing by the rules cannot compete with that – such a tactic is always reactionary, and frankly, ineffective; who listens? Following the rules is the same as ranting and raving; gets the same result.

          So, your criticism of the commenters essentially says, if we don’t have some other plan, we have nothing to contribute here. Which is why I noted you made a compelling case for ending the blog – nothing productive gets done, so go somewhere else.

          The people supporting armed insurrection are acknowledging playing by the rules is rendering the constitution moot, elections moot. So what is left?

        18. avatar Craig in IA says:

          It seems to be a blind route to arrive at your logic, Sam. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the whiners/complainers here or anywhere else will join any type of armed insurrection, either, or even vote or enter into any other manner of support beyond their “keyboard skills”. Their only real action is usually inaction, and to blame others for their supposed fate. If you’ve been involved at any level in organizing this conflict over the past 45 years or so you’d know that to be a truth.

          I may be critical of posters but no where have I ever attempted to deny them their right (actually, privelege on a private site/blog) to express themselves. There are primarily 2 sides to take (other than just letting things take their own course), I’ll take the one that keeps me in the battle even if there is a short term retreat, as with the “assault weapons ban” in 1993, which has become meaningless today. Had the “all or nothing, never give an inch” hardcorps tards here taken the lead in the fight back then, we’d be down to what Australia allows today. As it turned out, we negotiated a stall, replenished, reprovisioned, and now there are likely10 times as many of the targeted firearms in the hands of civilians today than in 1993. They will not be taken away nor rendered useless, the sheer numbers make it impossible. Ditto handguns with 40 some states now acquiescing to concealed carry on demand.

          As for this blog in general, it’s primarily entertainment for me. There is some information value but the majority of info in the articles that is useful in strategy for the advancement of the Second Amendment is available in many other places and it’s rare when I become aware of something I read here first, except, perhaps, the daily demise of the NRA. I suppose one can say there is somewhat a “diversity of opinions” expressed here, from kindergarten level to more advanced thinking but I see very little in the way of positive movement towards maintaining and advancing people’s rights and liberties ever coming from the vast majority of these discussions which are often merely one-liners and piling on. Just a place to vent, for you in your many postings as well as me and everyone else. I know I spend way too much time around here that could be better spent with my lobbying colleagues. Again, it just helps me see what we’re up against, from all sides. Circular firing squad of sorts.

          By all means, go out and begin your little war, enough of the advocating, or supporting that of others. I hope you at least have the gonads to lead from the front rather than just goad on the ones who will be merely cannon fodder, literally. However, thoughout modern history, generally those of us who are highly educated find a means to get others to do our bidding for us. Pity.

        19. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “By all means, go out and begin your little war, ”

          Not advocating any war. Pointing out that your theory of operations is what got us on the losing side of history – playing by the rules, rules set by the opposition. Such thinking is reminiscent of the way the Republicrat leadership operates. The emphasis being on style, rather than function.

          Point is, 2A “protectors” are reactionaries, always fending off attacks from anti-gunners (probably because decorum and correct procedure are more important than outcomes).

          Where are the stories about pro-gun organizations launching offensives against squelching of constitutional rights? Where are the media blitzes? Where are the public service promos? The people who provide the funding for pro-gun organizations are not seeing a significant effect. Out thought, out fought, out voted, outcast, what is the natural alternative to endless loss of rights? If we can’t “sell” our position to the masses, we either pack it in, or start to view extreme remedy as a viable option. I think that is how this nation started. The irony is we, as a movement are not organized to win in the extreme, either.

        20. avatar Crtaig in IA says:

          So- you’re selling your “positions” to the masses? The whiners/moaners here are?

          Evidence?

        21. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” So- you’re selling your “positions” to the masses? The whiners/moaners here are?
          Evidence?”

          Not quite following this. My bad.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Baby steps L, baby steps. The left fights effectively with incrementalism and so can we.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The left burns the house down. You can’t build it by burning it down. Order to chaos, not the other way around. Incrementalism will always, always, always erode the exercise of rights. Counting on incrementalism to restore the true exercise of unalienable individual rights is paramount to expecting the Titanic to re-float herself over time. She won’t.

          The true exercise of unalienable individual rights will only be restored through massive, unified efforts in short periods of time. Incrementalism will never arrive there. Anyone selling it as a means of restoration are peddling very dangerous lies.

      3. avatar Craig in IA says:

        And I’m still waiting for that list of wars that were started over less than bumpstocks” being reclassified by ATF that started me writing about this in the first place…

    3. avatar BATF = Constructive Fraud says:

      Why ‘ cut a deal ‘ with ATF at all ?

      ” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, has no venue or jurisdiction within the borders of any of the 50 States of the united States of America, except in pursuit of an importer of contraband alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, who failed to pay the TAX on those items. As proof, refer to the July 30, 1993 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1 F.3d 1511; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 19747, where the court ruled in United States v. D.J. Vollmer & Co. that “the B.A.T.F. has jurisdiction over the first sale of a firearm imported to the country, but they don’t have jurisdiction over subsequent sales.”

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I’m pretty sure it would take an act of congress to open the registry since it took one to close it.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Or a court order finding that the closing of the registry is not the least restrictive way to serve any legitimate government purpose.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          True, as with any legislation the courts could overturn it. But the ATF can’t.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          It can if it’s part of a settlement on the bump-stock ban case. Sue and settle.

        4. avatar Sian says:

          The President has the authority to authorize an amnesty, IIRC.

        5. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          I am curious about that “settlement” thing that you guys have been talking about in different threads regarding the bump stock issue. The machine gun registry can only be opened by an act of Congress or by SCOTUS ruling its closure unconstitutional. Neither is involved in a “settlement” between the plaintiffs and the ATF/DOJ.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      dream on!….

  2. avatar UsedtobePun says:

    Americans do not want dangerous freedom. Here’s a partial list of what they want:

    – The ability to go to college and rack up insane amounts of debt
    – The ability to get a job at some corporation
    – The freedom to pay more and more taxes
    – The freedom to play Xbox and Playstation
    – The ability to buy subsidized smart phones to be legally spied on and tracked
    – The ability to buy overpriced McMansions that they cannot afford
    – The freedom to buy cars with mandated “safety” measures and gadgets
    – The ability to speak their politically correct mind on Twitter and Facebook
    – The right to vote for their political party of choice, as long as that means Republican or Democrat
    – The ability for their preferred party to gain power and force their pet legislation on every other citizen
    – The freedom to be the “sole superpower” and play regime change monopoly all over the earth
    – The freedom to sign up for the military and kill people living in caves and to protect opium fields
    – The freedom to become a law enforcement officer and “do what they are ordered to do”.
    – The ability to work for the TSA and sexually molest people
    – The ability to drool at the TV or mobile screen at the latest “news”, marvel movie or sports game
    – The freedom to let the government at all levels to take care of them from the cradle to the grave

    I could go on and on…but the velvet chains seem to be the accessory of choice for most Americans.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      A benign dictatorship could put a nice end to all that. There’s something to be said for the divine right of kings.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’m a big fan of the Roman Republic Dictator system. Absolute authority for one year and a day.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m a big fan of the Roman Republic Dictator system. Absolute authority for one year and a day.”

          There ya’ go.

        2. avatar UsedtobePun says:

          That’s disgusting and abhorrent.

          As if tyranny is any less tyranny because there’s a year and one day time limit on it…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength;

        4. avatar Visigoth says:

          Yeah that worked out real well for Rome.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” in response to pwrserge:”

          ” I’m a big fan of the Roman Republic Dictator system. Absolute authority for one year and a day.”

          @Visigoth
          “Yeah that worked out real well for Rome.”

          Rome lasted a thousand years (753BC – 476AD. The US won’t survive 300. So, yeah, tyranny worked out well for the empire.

        6. avatar Visigoth says:

          Well I guess that settles it. Support tyranny then. I’m sure you’ll be very happy then.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You can take the commie out of communism but you can never take the communism out of the commie.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You missed the dry humor, completely.

    2. avatar Joatmon says:

      Good list.
      Might want to add with the smartphones, the ability to be addicted to the new drug of the 21st century.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        I don’t disagree with a lot of things on that list but for the most part they are things most of the world (not just Americans) want, or seem to want access to. The real exercise here, rather than complain about things that are, is to come up with some manner to convince everyday Americans that they should be concerned about the erosion of liberties and rights. Most POGs do a terrible job of doing this and often come off as acting selfish with their own rights, F— everyone else, etc. etc, as can be readily viewed by long strings of comments on this site; nearly every thread. Make this relavant to everyone and you might make some real headway. In recent history, the Donald is about the only major player even speaking to this issue and is why he was elected nearly everywhere except in the large, welfare states, where the majority of the population now resides. Personally, I still blame ATF for this mess in the first place but pick your own victim.

    3. avatar L says:

      New cars are ridiculous. So many safety features makes the car so heavy and too complicated. Some people think it’s amazing autopilot cars can keep the from getting into crashes. I think it’s making people more dependent and stupid.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjGe0GiiFzw

      A government’s favorite kind of people are dependent and stupid.

      1. avatar john says:

        – The freedom to buy cars with mandated “safety” measures and gadgets

        …..yet there are still twice as many car deaths as gun deaths every year. But gun deaths are a “health crisis”.
        ones a constitutional right and one isnt….yet the babysitting govmint does what to address the vehicle deaths? mandated safety items that work oh so well.

        Also if you haven’t figured out by this point that new cars are the same as old cars just with more useless gizmos to entice people to buy new cars since nothing with the general system has been improved for decades you are not winning. I do thoroughly enjoy listening to people complain about how broke they are when they have a 2018 or 2019 this or that. Maths are hard and stuff.

        1. avatar L says:

          If anything we’re going backwards, late 70s early 80s Hondas were 45+ mpg. Starting to think the legislation upon legislation is to make it impossible for new car companies to start up to demote competition. The current big ones may be in bed with our elected officials.

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        They cost quite a bit and only 500 a year or made.

        https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018/12/11/the-cost-of-a-time-machine/

      3. avatar pg2 says:

        “A government’s favorite kind of people are dependent and stupid” 100% correct, and you can add weak, unhealthy to the list as well.

  3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Thomas Jefferson also said to include a gun along with you on your daily walks. And replace the ball you play with with a firearm. He believed the young would have more productive exercise if they carried a rifle around.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Ever hefted a Brown Bess? Go for a run carrying her and you would get a bit more exercise!

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        At 12 lb each the Thompson submachine gun and the M1 Garand carried by soldiers daily was quite a workout as well.

  4. avatar Old Region Fan says:

    Evidently not something Rob Pincus subscribes to ?

  5. avatar mark1955 says:

    Mass “shooting” False Flag warning!

    Today is 6th week anniversary of Thousand Oaks ( November 7th ) alleged mass shooting attack.

    Since FBI like to Try and stage False Flag events every six weeks, I fully expect the FBI to Try and stage some type of event between now and this weekend to Try and get more gun control.

    https://www.blacklistednews.com/The_FBI_Appears_To_Be_Involved_In_Staging_Or_Covering_Up_Active_Shooter_And_Terror_Hoax_Events_Every_Six_Weeks/31624/0/5/5/Y/M.html “FBI appears to be involved in staging or covering up active shooter and terror hoax events every six weeks”!

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      What color is the sky in your world?

  6. avatar Enuf says:

    Any infringement upon the private ownership and carrying of small arms equal to current military issue is a violation of the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

  7. avatar A O says:

    Your writing is poor quality.

    Also, the bump stock is an accessory, not a firearm. This would not be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar L says:

      By extension, you are admitting that you believe it is constitutional to ban all firearm accessories.

      Imagine this all being illegal:
      foreward pistol grips
      angled foregrip
      any foregrip
      gun lights
      binary triggers
      competition triggers
      custom handguards
      lasers
      range bags
      holsters
      limbsavers
      suppressors
      handgun grip replacements
      bipods
      rifle slings
      rail mounted gopros
      anything rail mounted
      optics that are not irons
      maybe even aftermarket irons
      maybe even anything aftermarket

      1. avatar A O says:

        “By extension” is an assumption on your part.

        I do not believe in restriction of any firearm accessories, as many of them actually increase an individuals performance of firearm manipulation.

    2. avatar Evan says:

      Great logic! Guess we can ban ammo too! Think before you type fudd.

      1. avatar A O says:

        Possession and sale of ammunition is prohibited by state laws. So are some accessories. Neither is good.

        Tool.

    3. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      The Derp is strong with this one.

      First, the “bump stock ban” reclassifies an “accessory” as a machine gun == firearm under the NFA. So, fail #1. Imagine if an herb were unilaterally reclassified as marijuana. Since marijuana is illegal, so too is the herb (now). At no point was the herb actually illegal.

      Second, the US Supreme Court has found that powder, ammunition and ‘accessories’ are included in the 2nd Amendment, just as paper and ink are included in the 1st Amendment. The ability to regulate items associated with arms is equivalent to regulating arms.

      1. avatar A O says:

        The Supreme Court already has upheld decisions of restricting many firearms (assault rifle ban in 90s, machine guns,etc), but many accessories such as suppressors are not banned outright, they require an additional step to obtain. I do not believe that this accessory should be classified as a firearm, Therefore they would not have been fully banned.

  8. avatar Old Region Fan says:

    Maybe a “buy a 30 rd magazine day” is in order to support our friends in New Jersey ??

    If Mr. Pincus approves of course

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…quoting Jefferson. I’m sure Sally Hemings and his nearly white slave children would have something to say. Tom never actually fought in the revolution did he?!? I’m thinking “we” are going to lose our rights big times…

  10. avatar possum says:

    I will be glad when spring roles around and I can go fishing. Tried it yesterday, no luck.

  11. avatar MarkPA says:

    I regard the machine-gun regulation as UN-Constitutional after the Hughes Amendment; nevertheless, we have other more important fish to fry.

    That opinion notwithstanding, I’m always open to a spirited argument that might actually open a fissure. We can, of course, argue that machine-guns are absolutely protected under the 2A; and, if there is any sub-type of “arms” with the most protection, the machine-gun must be “IT”. But, that won’t get us anywhere. We are merely howling at the moon.

    So, how about an argument that WOULD hold-up?

    When machine-guns were first regulated under the NFA’34, Congress held that it lacked the power to ban them under the 2A. It retained the power to tax and register them. And, perhaps, to regulate them in other ways that would not forbid them altogether nor undermine the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

    I propose that we AGREE with the opinion of Congress in 1934.

    At the moment, we do not see any especially COMPELLING use for machine-guns outside a military context. Conversely, within the military context, the argument for the use of machine-guns IS compelling, albeit narrow.

    With the Hughes Amendment, the regulation of machine-guns now undermines the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. We have a limited and aging inventory of 175,000 civilian machine-guns. Unfortunately, these are not evenly and widely distributed such that our youth – the backbone of the militia – may achieve and maintain proficiency in their use. We have an adequate supply of veterans who can use and teach proficiency in machine-guns; but these are intrinsically an aging resource.

    Under these circumstances the efficiency of a well-regulated militia is being gradually – imperceptibly – undermined. It is this state of the NFA’34 which is un-Constitutional and ought to be remedied.

    A machine-gun, like every other type of firearm, is a dangerous weapon. But we do not on that account forbid it. In fact, we freely admit to 175,000 of these weapons in the hands of licensed civilians. The problem is that this is a fixed and aging stock. That is the problem to be remedied.

    There is no pretense that the existing law prevents a criminal or crazy from obtaining a machine-gun unlawfully. This is a fairly simple matter which any smuggler or machinist can manage. What we are debating is the regime under which a law-abiding citizen may lawfully and safely buy/make and use a machine-gun – especially for the “necessary” purpose of maintaining the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

    For these purposes it would suffice if any law-abiding citizen could freely acquire under a Form-1/4 license the right to make/buy a machine-gun to keep safely, transport to a range or other suitable venue, and use. In such a scenario, hobbyist machinists could – and would – practice the art of making effective DIAS, for example. They would test them and perfect their designs and skills. They would train their daughters and sons in the effective use of machine-guns in such venues.

    In the remote – but inevitable – event of foreign invasion (e.g., by the Chinese Army), the militia would have to contend with semi-auto AR-15s and the handful of machine-guns that might be brought to the front in the first days of fighting. Yet, with the maintenance of machining skills, militia members would turn-out an adequate supply of DIAS for militia use within weeks. Our sons and daughters would have acquired and maintained sufficient proficiency to support the National Guard and regular troops in the defense of the nation.

    A foreign invasion is but one of an unknowable number of contingencies for which a well-regulated militia might prove necessary for the security of a free state. We can not hope to predict the sort of incident which might next arise nor when nor where. Certainly not the probability. But we are NOT allowed the indulgence to debate any such question. We the People ordained a Constitution and its Amendments of which the 2’nd has determined: A well regulated militia [IS] necessary for the security of a free state . . .” It is therefore beyond the legitimate power of Congress to “infringe” on the right of the People to keep and – at least maintain proficient use of – machine-guns.

    We conclude, accordingly, that the Hughes Amendment is UN-Constitutional. Otherwise, the $200 tax, registration requirement, and required permission to move machine-guns across state lines are not-NECESSARILY forbidden “infringements”. Just the Hughes Amendment.

    I hold no delusion that the foregoing argument would ever gain traction. I articulate it for no such purpose. Nevertheless, IF we wanted to make the best argument for relief that we COULD hope to make, something along these lines would be really hard for the Anti’s to dispute.

    The impediment that really stands in the way of maintaining a “well-regulated militia” with respect to the NFA’34 is the impracticality of maintaining wide-spread practice in making – therefore manufacturing – a DIAS. Cure THAT obstacle and then we will have ENOUGH.

  12. avatar Kenneth says:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  13. avatar DaveR says:

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” -TJ

    Wonder how he’d have felt if his own slaves had adopted that philosophy?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wonder how he’d have felt if his own slaves had adopted that philosophy?”

      The nation is illegitimate; built on white man’s privilege; stolen from peaceful aborigines; corrupted by development; a burden on an otherwise moral and innocent world; responsible for the sins of man from even before the nation was founded.

    2. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      I think he would have been clever enough to see the beauty in it, if he had time to think about it. I think he knew he was a hypocrite.

      But yeah, it’s not like he was against slavery period. It was just a personal preferance he was talking about, that he didn’t want to be one himself. Anyway It’s a rough piece of historical baggage to dredge up for a pretty generic quote. Not insightful or helpful vis-a-vis the bump stock ban.

  14. avatar barnbwt says:

    Just a dead old cracker; who care?

    Anyone find it interesting that the guys who seemed to understand & value freedom the most…were slave owners?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Who better to realize that there is always someone who will try to dominate you, take what you have, and profit from your labor? That’s the nature of human kind. TJ apparently understood that very well. It’s no great mystery “that the guys who seemed to understand & value freedom the most…were slave owners”. In fact, it’s quite simple to grasp. Who better to understand how fragile liberty can be than one who steals it from another?

  15. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    This Thomas Jefferson quote and the comments by people underneath it are a great example of why there is such a Great Divide in the United States to this day.

    There are simply Americans who believe that they would be better off under some type of “soft slavery” or “soft tyrannical government”. Liberals

    While there are other Americans who would prefer Liberty, and have the freedom, to choose how they wish to live. Conservatives

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email