Just read a very interesting article from Politico on the history of second amendment interpretation and how the NRA transformed from a sportsman's organization devoted to firearms instruction and improved marksmanship to one of the most powerful right-wing lobbying organizations.
One of the most interesting parts to me was the section about the "Revolt at Cincinnati" and the massive shift in the NRA's focus that resulted from it. When I was a kid my dad -- a veteran who worked in law enforcement, and also an amateur gunsmith and collector of antique firearms -- was a card-carrying NRA member who proudly displayed his NRA membership sticker. Then around 1982 or '83 I remember very vividly him destroying his card, removing the stickers from his car, and getting into very loud, angry arguments with my uncle for not quitting (though he did end quitting after the rash of militia-related terrorism in the 90s, which scared him off of gun politics). Since I was a kid at the time, I didn't really understand what had happened (doesn't help that my dad's idea of political expression was mostly loudly yelling about how stupid some people are), but gathered it had something to do with plastic guns. The NRA lead an unsuccessful campaign against attempts to regulate plastic guns that could defeat metal detectors in the early 80's; said regulations were strongly supported by law enforcement, and terrorists were hijacking planes left and right which made the public very sensitive , so the NRA got pretty much creamed by the pro-regulation crowd. It always seemed like my dad's reaction was bit on the extreme side, but reading this article I can see that it was probably the broader shift from a sportsman organization to political lobbying group that probably drove my dad off. He tended to irrationally hate politics.
I also find it really interesting that none of the legal decision involving firearms and the second amendment invoke an individual right to bear arms until after the NRA began its lobbying efforts. I'd always understood gun control to be an aberration of 70s, a divergence from historical trends, but apparently it's the current interpretation which is the recent invention.
Politico wrote:The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
There was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, certainly at the Federal level. And the States didn't get around to firearms legislation until the early 1800s, starting with Kentucky in 1813, I think. So this statement which leads the article is patently wrong.
Politico wrote:The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
There was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, certainly at the Federal level. And the States didn't get around to firearms legislation until the early 1800s, starting with Kentucky in 1813, I think. So this statement which leads the article is patently wrong.
Indeed. The idea of such a thing was utterly inconceivable.
The right to own a weapon would have, in their minds, fallen under natural and inalienable rights. It was assumed and thus never viewed as being necessary to be further clarified. We don't see a need to legislate someones right to breath.
But we do know that the definition of "Militia" by their terms was everybody. Thus the right to own a weapon for the purposes of warfare was implicitly stated by the second amendment. It wasn't till gun grabbers tried to exploit changing definitions that we needed to reassert the true meaning behind it.
This was posted on "The truth about guns" so grains of salt and all... But I think it hits pretty well what I was going to say about Grey Templar's comment:
Basically that yes, the right to bear arms was as natural as breathing and for the Feds to create laws which limited or "infringed" on that right would have been as ludicrous in those days as making a law making breathing illegal.
Politico wrote:The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
Right, just like the right to free speech doesnt cover anything but oral speech and old tyme hand crank letters.
The NRA was 100% right to fight bad laws, against "plastic" guns IE GLOCKS when they first came out with polymer handles.
These were RUMOURED to be able to go through metal detectors due to the press taking bad info, and using antiquated metal detectors that missed all sorts of knives and such, running with bad facts causing sensationalism, and all the emotional sensationalist hand wringers ate it up as fact.
So of course when the NRA steps in they look like the bad guy, because everyone thinks the laws will protect them from the deadly glock being carried on a plane through a detector.
Its so much easier to get people to buy into a lie that is on its face, emotionally palpable, then it is to correct them afterwards, no matter how much proof is shown.
Lots of FUDD's who think anything that isnt a wood stock rifle should be banned dont like that kind of thing, and are happy to throw AR and glock type gun owners under the bus.
Meanwhile, anyone who knows anything, knows that a glock will set off the metal detector, and that the laws banning such pistols are stupid, and exactly the kind of thing the NRA should be fighting.
The first "plastic" gun was only just recently made, and it is almost as likely to blow up as fire, and STILL uses a metal firing pin that can set of detectors...
in fact, to this DAY, the media STILL believes its own lie, and claims glocks can go through detectors, its also a common myth/misconception amongst people.
even IF, and this is a BIG if, the brand new 3d printed guns COULD be made with 100% plastic including the pin and chamber,
the AMMO is still 100% metal, and unavoidable so, and 100% detectable.
an interesting article, to be sure. but it doesn't seem to say much for one side or the other. the placement of just one word could change the context of what follows, really. 'an unfettered individual's right...'
change that to 'an individual's unfettered right...', and it could be construed as a pro-gun control article.
of course, it contradicts itself later, with 'Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.' note the words 'every' and 'required'. every man is each man, and each man is an individual. and those men would keep, and bear, their arms in opposition to tyranny, ideally.
i lean against the fence on gun control, really. i am all for an individual's right to keep, and carry, a weapon for the purposes of self-defense. fortunately, i live in a place where that is allowed. look at countries with general bans on handguns. what percentage of the populace of those nations posess handguns? and for what purpose? in a country with such a ban, the only people who would seek to own such a gun for purposes other than defending themselves are, shall we say, 'active' criminals. unfortunately, this means that any civilian who who owns such a firearm for the purpose of defending themselves is also a criminal, legally speaking.
so, while you might say i am pro-gun, i am also in favor of the regulation of guns. anyone who has no intention of using a gun for criminal purposes should not be opposed to their weapons being registered.
a while back, here in the states, there was some hubbub about a law which would basically cause the fbi to be notified if an individual purchased x number of 'assault rifles' (which is a somewhat dubious term, in and of itself) in x number of days. i don't know about you, but if i bought a bunch of guns all at once, i wouldn't be offended if an authority figure showed up on my doorstep asking what i needed those guns for...
Politico wrote:The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
There was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, certainly at the Federal level. And the States didn't get around to firearms legislation until the early 1800s, starting with Kentucky in 1813, I think. So this statement which leads the article is patently wrong.
I think you're misreading the statement. That there was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 doesn't mean that the founder's intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. It only means that they didn't see any need to regulate guns at the time. I found the interpretation of "to bear arms" offered by the article really interesting, especially in light of the proposed conscientious objector language. Given that reading of the 2nd amendment, it seems like a lot of people could sue their way into the military.
No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.
Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.
And no, you couldn't sue your way into the military.
friendlycommissar wrote: I think you're misreading the statement. That there was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 doesn't mean that the founder's intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. It only means that they didn't see any need to regulate guns at the time.
That is a terrible argument and you are a lesser person for making it.
Grey Templar wrote: No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.
Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.
To be fair. They lived in an age when the average rate of fire was 3 rounds a minute.
And no, you couldn't sue your way into the military.
Grey Templar wrote: No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.
Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.
To be fair. They lived in an age when the average rate of fire was 3 rounds a minute.
Yeah, so?
I find it odd people keep bringing up that fact. its totally irrelevant. Especially when you consider the casualty rates for wars have gone down immensely over the years, as have bullets fired to targets hit.
Grey Templar wrote: No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.
Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.
To be fair. They lived in an age when the average rate of fire was 3 rounds a minute.
again, you dont apply that kind of farcical argument to the right to free speech and say it only covers vocal speech but not talking on the phone, through typewriters, or through the Internets.
so put that card away. Calling that kind of argument "fair" is completely the opposite of true.
Why do we think the founding fathers intentions matter? Given that they're so removed from current weapons technology, we have no means of knowing what they'd have thought about it. I.E. What they wanted shouldn't matter in the gun debate.
so put that card away. Calling that kind of argument "fair" is completely the opposite of true.
I'm not. I'm asking why it matters what the Founding Father's thought. Obviously we've been forced to just pick and choose as time has gone on. So debating their intentions is a farce. A vain attempt to appeal to authority so removed from us that it can't be considered valid.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The idea of such a thing was utterly inconceivable.
The right to own a weapon would have, in their minds, fallen under natural and inalienable rights. It was assumed and thus never viewed as being necessary to be further clarified. We don't see a need to legislate someones right to breath.
I'd say it wasn't as much taken for granted, but more that it was not even considered. It's important to realise that one individual with a musket is damn near close to irrelevant in terms of any potential military presence he can have. Asserting that a private individual should be denied a musket would be just a puzzling as asserting a private individual must not be allowed a musket. It's just a non-issue, something not addressed by that clause for the same reason that it doesn't address the right of men to own and wear wigs.
So, when times change, and rifles with the accuracy, range and rate of fire are developed so that one man really can wreak havoc, well it should come as no surprise that reading and re-reading that one clause, and endlessly debating the placement of that comma, and reading all manner of bits of bad history looking to prove one side or the other doesn't address the basic reality that that one clause says nothing about whether private individuals should be allowed to own guns.
so put that card away. Calling that kind of argument "fair" is completely the opposite of true.
I'm not. I'm asking why it matters what the Founding Father's thought. Obviously we've been forced to just pick and choose as time has gone on. So debating their intentions is a farce. A vain attempt to appeal to authority so removed from us that it can't be considered valid.
so you are against free speech on any tech more modern then the constitution as well then? how could the founding fathers envision the internet?
you are pro seizure of property so long as its more modern tech?
the intentions of the people writing down, inalienable, timeless, human rights, dont matter when determining human rights now?
what malarky... and I do reserve that word for the times it is deserved.
You are applying such hypocritical double standards to the constitution, picking and choosing what is correct only as you see fit.
I appeal to no authority, I quote truths that are SELF EVIDENT, written down by men who were my equals, not my "lords" of hats or otherwise.
morpheuschild wrote: an interesting article, to be sure. but it doesn't seem to say much for one side or the other. the placement of just one word could change the context of what follows, really. 'an unfettered individual's right...'
change that to 'an individual's unfettered right...', and it could be construed as a pro-gun control article.
of course, it contradicts itself later, with 'Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.' note the words 'every' and 'required'. every man is each man, and each man is an individual. and those men would keep, and bear, their arms in opposition to tyranny, ideally.
The distinction would be that guns owned for the purpose of being part of a state militia could not be limited. But that guns owned for self-defence, or hunting, or just because guns are fun would not be protected under the constitution. Not saying that therefore such weapons ought to be banned, but that the constitution wouldn't have a say either way.
i lean against the fence on gun control, really. i am all for an individual's right to keep, and carry, a weapon for the purposes of self-defense. fortunately, i live in a place where that is allowed. look at countries with general bans on handguns. what percentage of the populace of those nations posess handguns? and for what purpose? in a country with such a ban, the only people who would seek to own such a gun for purposes other than defending themselves are, shall we say, 'active' criminals. unfortunately, this means that any civilian who who owns such a firearm for the purpose of defending themselves is also a criminal, legally speaking.
It's worth pointing that very, very few places have an outright ban on firearms. Australia made waves with its gun control laws in the wake of Port Arthur, but it is still legal to own many kinds of guns, either for farming purposes or just because you want one.
That said, I'd argue our laws are too restrictive, and put an unnecessary burden on legitimate gun use (needing to apply for and pay the fee for a new gun license when you simply want to dispose of an old, worn out gun and replace it with a new gun, or when you change house, for instance). But you can in fact keep a gun in your house, shoot an intruder with it and not be a criminal (provided it met the legal standard of self defence).
easysauce wrote: so you are against free speech on any tech more modern then the constitution as well then?
Missing the point.
how could the founding fathers envision the internet?
They couldn't. Which is why their intentions don't matter. We choose where free speech is applied, not some guys from 250 years ago. They don't live in our world and couldn't imagine it. What they wanted doesn't matter anymore.
you are pro seizure of property so long as its more modern tech?
No. I think what the founders wanted is irrelevant to us. You can assume that means all kinds of nonsense I didn't say but you're talking to a fictional person who isn't here.
the intentions of the people writing down, inalienable, timeless, human rights, dont matter when determining human rights now?
Why do you think they should matter?
what malarky... and I do reserve that word for the times it is deserved.
Really? Cause you've got about five fallacies in your post other than the basic appeals to authority that make up almost this entire thread. Talk about malarky
You are applying such hypocritical double standards to the constitution, picking and choosing what is correct only as you see fit.
I am? Please point where.
I appeal to no authority, I quote truths that are SELF EVIDENT,
I find it odd people keep bringing up that fact. its totally irrelevant. Especially when you consider the casualty rates for wars have gone down immensely over the years, as have bullets fired to targets hit.
It says a lot about the combat effectiveness of one guy, or a handful of guys. The thing to realise about the modern world is that a handful of guys with modern assault rifles can rock up in a town and take effective control of that town. The firepower that handful of guys have today used to require a trained and disciplined company of men.
The idea that it would have occurred to anyone in the late 18th century that people should find important the right of one guy, acting as part of no greater organisation, needs to have right to a musket is crazy.
Oh, and trying to make some point about the bullets fired per hit today is a total nonsense, as that is due to the use of suppression fire against enemy fighters who are armed with similar weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Maybe the Founding Fathers thought "Rights of the people shall not be infringed" was clear enough.
Then they wouldn't have included anything else, and not mentioned militias or the security of the free state. But they did.
morpheuschild wrote: an interesting article, to be sure. but it doesn't seem to say much for one side or the other. the placement of just one word could change the context of what follows, really. 'an unfettered individual's right...'
That's why I posted it. I thought it was fairly balanced and objective, just documenting how the NRA has shifted the narrative.
i lean against the fence on gun control, really. i am all for an individual's right to keep, and carry, a weapon for the purposes of self-defense. fortunately, i live in a place where that is allowed. look at countries with general bans on handguns. what percentage of the populace of those nations posess handguns? and for what purpose? in a country with such a ban, the only people who would seek to own such a gun for purposes other than defending themselves are, shall we say, 'active' criminals. unfortunately, this means that any civilian who who owns such a firearm for the purpose of defending themselves is also a criminal, legally speaking.
so, while you might say i am pro-gun, i am also in favor of the regulation of guns. anyone who has no intention of using a gun for criminal purposes should not be opposed to their weapons being registered.
This is pretty much how I feel. I'm a gun owner, and I don't have any issues with some degree of regulation. I find the idea of gun prohibition noxious (especially since I live more than 25 minutes from any police response), but sensible regulations like waiting periods and maybe even licensing don't bother me. But you know what does bother me? How really out there anti-gun control advocates have gotten. We have less gun control now that at any point in my life, and it's getting harder and harder to find pro-gun people who aren't making with the crazy "overthrow the tyranical government" talk, which makes me nervous. 99 times out 100, when someone (left or right) says they're ready to take up arms against the state, I find myself suddenly rooting for the state to win that fight.
And then there's this stuff, and not only do I not want to be associated with clowns like these morons, but these people are so stupid and irresponsible with their firearms that they end up making a compelling argument for licensing. I mean, even if these guys don't have a criminal record and aren't technically mentally incompetent, there really has to be some way to deal with punk teens who bring scary looking assault rifles into fraking fast food joints. Who does that? And then people defend this nonsense like the poor diners who were terrified to see Mutt and Jeff here with their fakie AKs are the ones in the wrong. Just mind-boggling.
Or the fruitcakes who think Sandy Hook was some kind of hoax created by the government to enact gun control. It disturbs me how often i hear people entertain ideas like that with no awareness that they are completely nuts. My big concern is that the NRA, who don't consider sane or rational at all (especially that Wayne LaPierre, that dude is nuts), so completely dominates the pro-gun side of the conversation and is just making it impossible to have sensible gun regulation, which only makes it more likely we'll have irrational and bad laws.
a while back, here in the states, there was some hubbub about a law which would basically cause the fbi to be notified if an individual purchased x number of 'assault rifles' (which is a somewhat dubious term, in and of itself) in x number of days. i don't know about you, but if i bought a bunch of guns all at once, i wouldn't be offended if an authority figure showed up on my doorstep asking what i needed those guns for...
Doesn't the FBI get notified if you buy a bunch of fertilizer? If we're going to check on dudes buying fertilizer, we should definitely check on the guys buying crates of semi-autos. God, can you imagine if something like the Mumbai attack occurred in America? People would lose their ****.
The so-called "plastic guns" of the 80s (the glock is the best known) weren't easily able to defeat metal detectors.
For one, most of the components were metal. the springs, bushings, barrels, slides, etc were metal (generally steel). Only the lowers were plastic - and the glock at least, had the plastic doped with barium, so it was most definitely NOT invisible to x-ray machines.
easysauce wrote: so you are against free speech on any tech more modern then the constitution as well then? how could the founding fathers envision the internet?
Obviously there's a process by which the literal principle enshrined at one time becomes a generalised principle as society and technology change.
But the intent must be reasonably clear in the first place. The issue is that here the clause simply isn't clear, and second guessing what the author's might have meant about one particular kind of gun ownership that is actually mentioned outright, and then extrapolating that out in to a general principle is a really flimsy process. It hasn't helped that the area has been filled with junk academia writing politicized history to let people think the founding father's agreed with their own personal viewpoint, but even if that wasn't the case, well frankly its still a stupid way to resolve the issue.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The idea of such a thing was utterly inconceivable.
The right to own a weapon would have, in their minds, fallen under natural and inalienable rights. It was assumed and thus never viewed as being necessary to be further clarified. We don't see a need to legislate someones right to breath.
I'd say it wasn't as much taken for granted, but more that it was not even considered. It's important to realise that one individual with a musket is damn near close to irrelevant in terms of any potential military presence he can have. Asserting that a private individual should be denied a musket would be just a puzzling as asserting a private individual must not be allowed a musket. It's just a non-issue, something not addressed by that clause for the same reason that it doesn't address the right of men to own and wear wigs.
So, when times change, and rifles with the accuracy, range and rate of fire are developed so that one man really can wreak havoc, well it should come as no surprise that reading and re-reading that one clause, and endlessly debating the placement of that comma, and reading all manner of bits of bad history looking to prove one side or the other doesn't address the basic reality that that one clause says nothing about whether private individuals should be allowed to own guns.
The term "the people" always refers to individual citizens in the Constitution. The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns. Their intention was that every American be armed in case armed resistance was necessary against a foreign or domestic government. That means that the guns have to be able to compete against common military guns of the day.
The 3/5ths of a person thing was pretty clear at the time as well, but that doesn't mean we didn't change that as time went on. No reason we shouldn't be able to do the same thing on firearms, but yet...
The 3/5ths of a person thing was pretty clear at the time as well, but that doesn't mean we didn't change that as time went on. No reason we shouldn't be able to do the same thing on firearms, but yet...
Don't forget all (white land owning) men are created equal.
friendlycommissar wrote: Or the fruitcakes who think Sandy Hook was some kind of hoax created by the government to enact gun control. It disturbs me how often i hear people entertain ideas like that with no awareness that they are completely nuts. My big concern is that the NRA, who don't consider sane or rational at all (especially that Wayne LaPierre, that dude is nuts), so completely dominates the pro-gun side of the conversation and is just making it impossible to have sensible gun regulation, which only makes it more likely we'll have irrational and bad laws.
Yeah, this is my opinion. There is nothing wrong with gun ownership, but there is something very wrong with US gun culture, and the NRA has played a significant role in driving that culture.
It should be noted, of course, that one issue in there is the failure of the pro-gun side, who remain fixated on symbolic, bad laws. When those laws do nothing to resolve gun violence while jerking around legal gun owners, well it's no wonder the blow back is more extremist gun owners.
MWHistorian wrote: The term "the people" always refers to individual citizens in the Constitution. The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.
And this is why I post in these threads. The idiocy that exists people's mouths is the best damn entertainment this side of Team America
I consider the 2nd amendment just as important to freedom as the 1st.
If you try to take any of my rights away, I will fight for them with everything I can. I've written letters to lawmakers and politicians many times and I've donated to causes that support my beliefs.
MWHistorian wrote: The term "the people" always refers to individual citizens in the Constitution.
Yes, 'the people' kept the guns, in order to use them as part of state militias.
The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.
Picking out that one instance as the spark of the war is junk history.
Their intention was that every American be armed in case armed resistance was necessary against a foreign or domestic government.
Is that the intention when this version was originally drafted?
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
That means that the guns have to be able to compete against common military guns of the day.
Surely if it includes modern rifles able to compete, it should also include other hardware? Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?
Jihadin wrote: You know Mattel, a toy company, makes the shoulder stock with the M16 at that time right?
When I was in boot camp and infantry school back in the 80's, my rifles had the Mattel logo stamped on them. When I was at San Onofre, we joked about being GI Joes with our toy rifles.
That's one story I know from personal experience Snopes got wrong.
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
People also miss the point that at the time, the Founders had no belief in the need (or security) of a standing army, making militia more essential to national defense.
Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?
Even if they did, who could afford one? The damn things cost $4 million (just for the drone, you still need a nerd who plays too much Flight Simulator ).
sebster wrote: It should be noted, of course, that one issue in there is the failure of the pro-gun side, who remain fixated on symbolic, bad laws. When those laws do nothing to resolve gun violence while jerking around legal gun owners, well it's no wonder the blow back is more extremist gun owners.
I don't expect a bunch of hand-wringing nancies to write good legislation. There are responsible, mature gun owners in congress. They could write good legislation. Republicans could write good legislation that actually works for responsible gun owners. But it's become all about having a perfect rating from the NRA, and that means supporting the lunatics who think the founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, seriously, George Washington put down an armed insurrection against the federal government in his first term of office. I'm pretty sure the founding father weren't laying the seeds for fringe radicals to engage in anti-government terrorism.
Arguing that taking away guns was even remotely a priority for the British or that it was a major reason for starting the Revolution is junk history. All the tax acts, the Intolerable acts, that silly law that gave British officials a free pass for any crime committed in the colonies, those were all decent reasons, but none of them really involved guns.
And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.
Well come on. Who wouldn't want to own a drone. Personally I'd rather have my own Abrams, but dreams are dreams
Arguing that taking away guns was even remotely a priority for the British or that it was a major reason for starting the Revolution is junk history. All the tax acts, the Intolerable acts, that silly law that gave British officials a free pass for any crime committed in the colonies, those were all decent reasons, but none of them really involved guns.
And yes, I should own a drone. I'd totally love to have one.
Well come on. Who wouldn't want to own a drone. Personally I'd rather have my own Abrams, but dreams are dreams
Taking away guns was darned right a priority for the British. That was the sole reason they went to Concord. They heard people were creating an armory and went to take the guns away. The Minute men met them on the field and refused to disband. Boom. Start of American Revolution.
sebster wrote: Yes, 'the people' kept the guns, in order to use them as part of state militias.
In many places, people kept guns to hunt with and to defend themselves against the more warlike Indian tribes. Militia weapons were often stored in armories like we do now. The whole thing about Paul Revere and his midnight ride ("To arms! To arms! The British are coming.") was because the British regulars were marching to seize the militia's armory at Concord.
The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.
Picking out that one instance as the spark of the war is junk history.
True enough. It was mainly the push to wring money out of the Colonies that precipitated the Revolution. Boston Tea Party, anyone? The battles of Concord and Lexington were when the Revolution went "hot".
sebster wrote: Is there a constitutional right to own a predator drone?
No. The Second Amendment has always been interpreted to be about small arms such as rifles and pistols, not military ordnance. Even hand grenades wouldn't be interpreted as being covered by the Second Amendment by any except the hard-core fringe. I don't think I've ever seen in proffered that Timothy McVey had a Second Amendment right to make a fertilizer bomb.
Seizing a militia armory is not the same thing as taking away guns from citizens. Even if it was it's still junk history because you're willfully ignoring all the other reasons that sparked the conflicts at Lexington and Concord that had nothing to do with guns.
LordofHats wrote: Even if they did, who could afford one? The damn things cost $4 million (just for the drone, you still need a nerd who plays too much Flight Simulator ).
That's just because they're government and all inefficient. Get some private sales going on and the market will drive that down to the price of basic family sedan!
Breotan wrote: In many places, people kept guns to hunt with and to defend themselves against the more warlike Indian tribes. Militia weapons were often stored in armories like we do now. The whole thing about Paul Revere and his midnight ride ("To arms! To arms! The British are coming.") was because the British regulars were marching to seize the militia's armory at Concord.
MWHistorian wrote: The Revolution was sparked over the British trying to confiscate guns.
Calling it "The Revolution" is more junk history than hand picking one instance of "Gun Grabbing liberals" (to put it into modern parlance)
As for the verbage of the 2nd, it doesn't specifically outline that protection for "guns", but rather "arms" as at the time swords were still being used. Since people here are enjoying throwing wild assumptions on our founding fathers, perhaps they dreamt of a Grimdark world where jack-booted thugs drove up and down the road in their heavy tanks shouting at people and hitting them with their swords.
friendlycommissar wrote: I don't expect a bunch of hand-wringing nancies to write good legislation. There are responsible, mature gun owners in congress. They could write good legislation. Republicans could write good legislation that actually works for responsible gun owners. But it's become all about having a perfect rating from the NRA, and that means supporting the lunatics who think the founding fathers meant for the 2nd amendment to a bulwark against tyranny. I mean, seriously, George Washington put down an armed insurrection against the federal government in his first term of office. I'm pretty sure the founding father weren't laying the seeds for fringe radicals to engage in anti-government terrorism.
Massachusetts was building up their militia in response to the British military build-up. They were doing it in an "in your face" way, too. Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.
Breotan wrote: Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.
That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.
We just didn't like their laws They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea
Breotan wrote: True enough. It was mainly the push to wring money out of the Colonies that precipitated the Revolution. Boston Tea Party, anyone? The battles of Concord and Lexington were when the Revolution went "hot".
Yep.
No. The Second Amendment has always been interpreted to be about small arms such as rifles and pistols, not military ordnance. Even hand grenades wouldn't be interpreted as being covered by the Second Amendment by any except the hard-core fringe. I don't think I've ever seen in proffered that Timothy McVey had a Second Amendment right to make a fertilizer bomb.
Sure, and the question is why. If the intent was that the people should have the capability for armed insurrection, why would you stop merely at making sure people got to own guns?
As you say, the Second Amendment has always been interpreted to be about small arms, but shouldn't that tell people how arbitrary an interpretation that really is?
morpheuschild wrote: an interesting article, to be sure. but it doesn't seem to say much for one side or the other. the placement of just one word could change the context of what follows, really. 'an unfettered individual's right...'
That's why I posted it. I thought it was fairly balanced and objective, just documenting how the NRA has shifted the narrative.
i lean against the fence on gun control, really. i am all for an individual's right to keep, and carry, a weapon for the purposes of self-defense. fortunately, i live in a place where that is allowed. look at countries with general bans on handguns. what percentage of the populace of those nations posess handguns? and for what purpose? in a country with such a ban, the only people who would seek to own such a gun for purposes other than defending themselves are, shall we say, 'active' criminals. unfortunately, this means that any civilian who who owns such a firearm for the purpose of defending themselves is also a criminal, legally speaking.
so, while you might say i am pro-gun, i am also in favor of the regulation of guns. anyone who has no intention of using a gun for criminal purposes should not be opposed to their weapons being registered.
This is pretty much how I feel. I'm a gun owner, and I don't have any issues with some degree of regulation. I find the idea of gun prohibition noxious (especially since I live more than 25 minutes from any police response), but sensible regulations like waiting periods and maybe even licensing don't bother me. But you know what does bother me? How really out there anti-gun control advocates have gotten. We have less gun control now that at any point in my life, and it's getting harder and harder to find pro-gun people who aren't making with the crazy "overthrow the tyranical government" talk, which makes me nervous. 99 times out 100, when someone (left or right) says they're ready to take up arms against the state, I find myself suddenly rooting for the state to win that fight.
And then there's this stuff, and not only do I not want to be associated with clowns like these morons, but these people are so stupid and irresponsible with their firearms that they end up making a compelling argument for licensing. I mean, even if these guys don't have a criminal record and aren't technically mentally incompetent, there really has to be some way to deal with punk teens who bring scary looking assault rifles into fraking fast food joints. Who does that? And then people defend this nonsense like the poor diners who were terrified to see Mutt and Jeff here with their fakie AKs are the ones in the wrong. Just mind-boggling.
Or the fruitcakes who think Sandy Hook was some kind of hoax created by the government to enact gun control. It disturbs me how often i hear people entertain ideas like that with no awareness that they are completely nuts. My big concern is that the NRA, who don't consider sane or rational at all (especially that Wayne LaPierre, that dude is nuts), so completely dominates the pro-gun side of the conversation and is just making it impossible to have sensible gun regulation, which only makes it more likely we'll have irrational and bad laws.
a while back, here in the states, there was some hubbub about a law which would basically cause the fbi to be notified if an individual purchased x number of 'assault rifles' (which is a somewhat dubious term, in and of itself) in x number of days. i don't know about you, but if i bought a bunch of guns all at once, i wouldn't be offended if an authority figure showed up on my doorstep asking what i needed those guns for...
Doesn't the FBI get notified if you buy a bunch of fertilizer? If we're going to check on dudes buying fertilizer, we should definitely check on the guys buying crates of semi-autos. God, can you imagine if something like the Mumbai attack occurred in America? People would lose their ****.
sweet jesus... what were those two idiots thinking, that there might be a need for their rifles at the freakin' chipotle grill? in a state with concealed carry, and inside a relatively small building, pistols ought to suffice... and this would be in a place where an outbreak of violence would be ludicrously unlikely anyways...
that said, now it's time for a humorous personal anecdote...
early last autumn, my niece visited my parents' home so that my father could teach her how to shoot, as she wanted to go a-hunting during deer season. about a half an hour of that afternoon was spent hauling gun cases out of the closet and figuring out which gun was in which case. my dad actually owns so many rifles, not one an 'assault rifle', that he can't keep 'em straight as to which is which. kinda sad, methinks.
Breotan wrote: Other colonies had militias and armories (some more loosely meeting that definition than others) but they weren't agitating the way Massachusetts was.
That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.
We just didn't like their laws They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea
nope. we do business in 'murica over golf. which really isn't any better, if you ask me.
morpheuschild wrote: sweet jesus... what were those two idiots thinking, that there might be a need for their rifles at the freakin' chipotle grill? in a state with concealed carry, and inside a relatively small building, pistols ought to suffice... and this would be in a place where an outbreak of violence would be ludicrously unlikely anyways...
that said, now it's time for a humorous personal anecdote...
It's this thing these morons are doing where they're "aggressively" demonstrating their right to "bear arms" by making use of open carry laws. It's like political activism. Like pretty much all political activists in the post-internet age, I think they're complete dopes.
early last autumn, my niece visited my parents' home so that my father could teach her how to shoot, as she wanted to go a-hunting during deer season. about a half an hour of that afternoon was spent hauling gun cases out of the closet and figuring out which gun was in which case. my dad actually owns so many rifles, not one an 'assault rifle', that he can't keep 'em straight as to which is which. kinda sad, methinks.
When my dad passed away he had 34 rifles and six pistols in his collection. And then on top of that he had another twenty half-assembled rifles. It was such a mess to sort through it all. I inherited all of them, but after his memorial service I invited all of his best friends back to his house and gave all but one of them (my grandfather's M1-Garand he carried in Normandy, which I pretty much have to keep) away. Mostly because maintaining a collection of 40 antique guns is just way too much effort.
1) Why should we care what the founding fathers thought about the future? They couldn't predict the internet and guns in the 1780s could only fire one round a day or something like that!
Well the founding fathers did predict future problems, which is why there is that 2/3 clause to repeal an amendment if congress and the senate agree. So, yeah, it's highly unlikely, but the second could be changed.
2) Gun control in the USA: ever since I read about the reconstruction period after the civil war, my views on gun control have changed. I learned that most gun control efforts were by southerners trying to stop African Americans returning from the war, getting their hands on weapons, and a concentrated effort to disarm the black community. I read about the lynchings, the massacres, and learned that most gun control practices were rooted in racism. Obviously, I'm an outsider, but if I were an American (God forbid! ) I'd be deeply suspicious about gun control. Most of it seems to be rooted in moral panics.
I would like to propose that the American Constitution be recognised as an official religion When you guys start discussing what was said or what was meant it's like watching a discussion on religion
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. The idea of such a thing was utterly inconceivable.
The right to own a weapon would have, in their minds, fallen under natural and inalienable rights. It was assumed and thus never viewed as being necessary to be further clarified. We don't see a need to legislate someones right to breath.
I'd say it wasn't as much taken for granted, but more that it was not even considered. It's important to realise that one individual with a musket is damn near close to irrelevant in terms of any potential military presence he can have. Asserting that a private individual should be denied a musket would be just a puzzling as asserting a private individual must not be allowed a musket. It's just a non-issue, something not addressed by that clause for the same reason that it doesn't address the right of men to own and wear wigs.
So, when times change, and rifles with the accuracy, range and rate of fire are developed so that one man really can wreak havoc, well it should come as no surprise that reading and re-reading that one clause, and endlessly debating the placement of that comma, and reading all manner of bits of bad history looking to prove one side or the other doesn't address the basic reality that that one clause says nothing about whether private individuals should be allowed to own guns.
You do know some private citizens owned artillery pieces and warships/armed ships back then? Muskets for hunting were not the issue. You do also realize the muskets for hunting in many cases were a lot better than the mass issued infantry muskets of the day, right?
That, and the Massachusetts Government Act, which made the formation of a militia within the state a violation of British Law (not that anyone in Massachusetts bothered following that act for more than five minutes anyway). Contrary to the silly narrative portrayed by some circles, the British generally acted within accordance of what they believed the law to be. Yes, Massachusetts was seen as a greater agitator than other states, but they moved on the militia in Massachusetts because the militia there wasn't formed by the appointed authorities but by a provisional government. It had nothing to do with them think people in MS shouldn't have guns, or even that they shouldn't have a militia.
We just didn't like their laws They were written over tea. No real American does serious business over tea
What does Boston have to do with Mississippi?? IIRC, MS wasn't even a state in the US back then But really, at that point in time, I think that region was under French control, so I could see the Brits not wanting people in MS having guns
And CaptJake has the right of it... If you were wealthy enough back then, you literally could own whatever armaments you wanted to spend the money on (and probably have it monogrammed or some such nonsense)
What I'm always amazed at is how people think the 2nd amendment gives you unlimited access to guns. This has always irritated me just for people lack of knowledge. The 2nd amendment does not give you unlimited access to guns, just as the 1st amendment doesn't give you entirely free speech.
The fist amendment doesn't protect hate speech just like the 2nd is not the go ahead nod from 200 years ago to own an arsenal. Keep and bear arms doesn't mean start a neighborhood arms race.
Politico wrote:The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
There was no regulation on private gun ownership in 1791 when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, certainly at the Federal level. And the States didn't get around to firearms legislation until the early 1800s, starting with Kentucky in 1813, I think. So this statement which leads the article is patently wrong.
Originally there was no limitation of arms, as in you could own cannon.
Can I have a Bofors 40mm please? The mosquitoes are getting uppity again.
Grey Templar wrote: No, it means that they would never ever conceive of why anyone would ever regulate personal firearms and that such an idea was ludicrous. insane. mentally slowed. addled. and many other colorful descriptors.
Unregulated gun ownership was the status quo and nobody saw the need to cement that.
To be fair. They lived in an age when the average rate of fire was 3 rounds a minute.
Yeah, so?
I find it odd people keep bringing up that fact. its totally irrelevant. Especially when you consider the casualty rates for wars have gone down immensely over the years, as have bullets fired to targets hit.
A good German made (as in technology brought over by German immigrants) would only pull 2 rounds a minute. But you could shoot...Straight!
Texas state regional IDPA is Saturday yea boyyyy 250 contestants including apparently one Neanderthal sporting an Aggie Dad hat...
Why do we think the founding fathers intentions matter? Given that they're so removed from current weapons technology, we have no means of knowing what they'd have thought about it. I.E. What they wanted shouldn't matter in the gun debate.
This statement has almost nothing to do with a sane relationship with the Bill of Rights. Did you just fall out of bed and miss over 200 years of jurisdprudence?
so put that card away. Calling that kind of argument "fair" is completely the opposite of true.
I'm not. I'm asking why it matters what the Founding Father's thought. Obviously we've been forced to just pick and choose as time has gone on. So debating their intentions is a farce. A vain attempt to appeal to authority so removed from us that it can't be considered valid.
Lord of Hats appears to be unfamiliar with how the US legal system works and the Constitution is interpreted. Educate yourself young Padiwon with The Book Of FREEDOM THAT is the US Constitution.
SCOTUS the High Lords of...FREEDOM.
the Bill of Rights, God's To Do list of FREEDOM!
Bacon, the only food equal to FREEDOM FRIES and approved by Washington himself.
d-usa wrote: Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.
All laws are flexible and can be changed.
Hey, you be more respectful young man. The Supreme Court gave you the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court wants to it can take the Supreme Court away so if you want a Supreme Court you better pay the Supreme Court more respect.
2) Gun control in the USA: ever since I read about the reconstruction period after the civil war, my views on gun control have changed. I learned that most gun control efforts were by southerners trying to stop African Americans returning from the war, getting their hands on weapons, and a concentrated effort to disarm the black community. I read about the lynchings, the massacres, and learned that most gun control practices were rooted in racism. Obviously, I'm an outsider, but if I were an American (God forbid! ) I'd be deeply suspicious about gun control. Most of it seems to be rooted in moral panics.
Very correct. In Texas they were put in place post freeing the slaves. In California much was put into place after the Black Panthers got uppity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: The fist amendment doesn't protect hate speech just like the 2nd is not the go ahead nod from 200 years ago to own an arsenal. Keep and bear arms doesn't mean start a neighborhood arms race.
The First Amendment protects hate speech derp. Thank you for reminding me to make sure to update my membership in the ACLU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.
d-usa wrote: Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.
All laws are flexible and can be changed.
The Bill of Rights is not a law...
Having said that, the constitution does provide for a way to amend and amendments can be used to nullify other amendments. Surely all these folks who better understand how the 2nd should apply in the modern age can go through the proper procedures and amend it to read the way they want, right?
The First Amendment protects hate speech derp. Thank you for reminding me to make sure to update my membership in the ACLU.
Derp? Your response is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I over generalized but I'll admit to laziness if you admit to a disengenious excuse to be rude.
Let's look at what the SCOTUS has to say since they are the final arbiters on interpreting the Consitutution.
Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)- hate speech is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
SCOTUS overturned restriction of Nazi march.
Here's where things start to change...
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad. "overly broad" not against the constitution.
Virginia v. Black (2003)
In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."
So, 11 years later, prohibition of hate speech went from overly broad to allowing the state to prohibit forms of speech that inspire fear of bodily harm.
So, no, the 1st amendment does not give you the right to say any old thing that crosses your mind. People have the right to express any toxic idea that presents itself in their fetid imagination but as soon as someone has a reasonable belief that you mean them physical harm, you've crossed the line. As the most recent Westboro case showed, it's perfectly fine to stand around with signs that say objectionable things like "gay people will go to hell." or something equally ignorant but it only takes one sign that says something like "We'll kill you because you're gay." to get things shut down pretty quickly.
You can change attitudes toward the Second Amendment without amending it. We know this because it has happened over the last 200 years. This idea that things mean the exact same thing and have been interpreted the same throughout our history is just silly.
Having said that, the constitution does provide for a way to amend and amendments can be used to nullify other amendments. Surely all these folks who better understand how the 2nd should apply in the modern age can go through the proper procedures and amend it to read the way they want, right?
While they do provide a way to amend the amendments, they way they do that is to add more amendments (see, the 18th and 21st amendments). They cannot simply rewrite the 2nd amendment, vote on it, send it to the states for voting and call it a day... the "new 2nd amendment" would become the 28th or 29th (whatever number we're on) amendment.
The First Amendment protects hate speech derp. Thank you for reminding me to make sure to update my membership in the ACLU.
Derp? Your response is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I over generalized but I'll admit to laziness if you admit to a disengenious excuse to be rude.
Let's look at what the SCOTUS has to say since they are the final arbiters on interpreting the Consitutution.
Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)- hate speech is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
SCOTUS overturned restriction of Nazi march.
Here's where things start to change...
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad. "overly broad" not against the constitution.
Virginia v. Black (2003)
In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."
So, 11 years later, prohibition of hate speech went from overly broad to allowing the state to prohibit forms of speech that inspire fear of bodily harm.
So, no, the 1st amendment does not give you the right to say any old thing that crosses your mind. People have the right to express any toxic idea that presents itself in their fetid imagination but as soon as someone has a reasonable belief that you mean them physical harm, you've crossed the line. As the most recent Westboro case showed, it's perfectly fine to stand around with signs that say objectionable things like "gay people will go to hell." or something equally ignorant but it only takes one sign that says something like "We'll kill you because you're gay." to get things shut down pretty quickly.
NO. I'm right. Directly inciting violence is the only limit effectively put on "hate speech" (unless you're on a college campus of course).
Besides which, we already HAVE reasonable arms control/limits in the states akin to the limits on free speech.
You cannot buy anything bigger then conventional arms, and anything that goes PEWPEWPEWPEW (class 3 firearms) already have severe restrictions in place on them. And that doesnt actually cover all the safty measures already in place. The problem isnt that we dont have enough laws and restrictions, we have plenty, and they are reasonable and common sense already.
NO. I'm right. Directly inciting violence is the only limit effectively put on "hate speech" (unless you're on a college campus of course).
If it makes you feel better...directly inciting violence was not in the SCOTUS notes, rather creating a fear of bodily harm.
Other forms of speech are not protected as well, such as yelling "fire" in a theater or defamation or even selling "girlie" magazines to minors (Ginsberg v. New York). The overarching point here is that SCOTUS can and does interpret the meaning of the Constitution and the "meaning" changes depending upon whose butts are in the seats. Contrary to what many believe, the Bill of Rights is not a black and white document that you can read and live by and depend upon, there are mechanisms in place whereby application of these "rights" is applied through interpretation (it is an old document after all).
Inalienable rights are not all that inalienable depending upon who's walking all over them at any given point in time. If we see enough high-profile shootings and enough people die, who knows what the interpretation of the 2nd will be later...
Yelling fire is not hate speech. selling girlie magazines are not hate speech.
Your points are not related to your statement that hate speech is not a protected First Amendment right. You lose. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.
EDIT: I'll happily scale back firearms laws to the same level of Free Speech regulation if you'd like. Trashing 60,000 useless laws=priceless.
Frazzled wrote: Yelling fire is not hate speech.
selling girlie magazines are not hate speech.
Your points are not related to your statement that hate speech is not a protected First Amendment right. You lose. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Yes, I'll admit that my example was bad; can we please move on to the real topic? I'm not trying to have an argument but a conversation. My point that you overlooked in your rush to be right is that neither the 1st nor the 2nd amendment (or any part of the Consitution) are documents that are not open to interpretation and the interpretation can and does change over time and with the needs/perceptions of the people.
Just as in the 1st, the interpretations by SCOTUS over the years has changed. Just as some forms of speech are not protected, the right "to keep and bear arms" is not a blanket right. In 1876, SCOTUS determined that the right to keep weapons was outside the Constitution and not dependant upon it. The in 1939, they decided that certain firearms could be restricted. More recently the pendulum is swinging back the other way again so we get whackos walking around with assault rifles on their backs in walmart and walking through the food court with pistols on their hips. It's almost like we're determined as a people to not advance beyond the wild west.
Frazzled wrote: Yelling fire is not hate speech.
selling girlie magazines are not hate speech.
Your points are not related to your statement that hate speech is not a protected First Amendment right. You lose. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Yes, I'll admit that my example was bad; can we please move on to the real topic? I'm not trying to have an argument but a conversation. My point that you overlooked in your rush to be right is that neither the 1st nor the 2nd amendment (or any part of the Consitution) are documents that are not open to interpretation and the interpretation can and does change over time and with the needs/perceptions of the people.
Just as in the 1st, the interpretations by SCOTUS over the years has changed. Just as some forms of speech are not protected, the right "to keep and bear arms" is not a blanket right. In 1876, SCOTUS determined that the right to keep weapons was outside the Constitution and not dependant upon it. The in 1939, they decided that certain firearms could be restricted. More recently the pendulum is swinging back the other way again so we get whackos walking around with assault rifles on their backs in walmart and walking through the food court with pistols on their hips. It's almost like we're determined as a people to not advance beyond the wild west.
You do realize AR does not mean "Assault Rifle", right? Because I genuinely doubt that those few people who have pre-ban assault weapons are actually walking around with them. Semi-automatic? Sure, and I agree those guys are doing more harm for their stance than good. But this isn't a simple semantic issue; it's a distinction that needs to be repeatedly pointed out because it is repeatedly used to try to villify gun owners.
if the anti gun side is in the right, why do they constantly
either out right lie about things, or at the very best, spew their ignorance like its fact regarding calling things that are NOT assault rifles, assault rifles, and purposely using the incorrect terminolgy for many things, simply because its the more scary word to use.
Far too often, outright lies are presented as fact, and policies around those lies are attempted to be pushed through... just like the "glocks can go through scanners" BS, and numerous other examples.
Their argument should stand on its own if its a good one, that it doesnt, and they have to resort to demonizing gun owners and particular "looks scary" guns just shows there is no leg to stand on.
streamdragon wrote: You do realize AR does not mean "Assault Rifle", right? Because I genuinely doubt that those few people who have pre-ban assault weapons are actually walking around with them. Semi-automatic? Sure, and I agree those guys are doing more harm for their stance than good. But this isn't a simple semantic issue; it's a distinction that needs to be repeatedly pointed out because it is repeatedly used to try to villify gun owners.
That's a very good point. To be honest, when I wrote earlier, I didn't specifically have AR-15s in mind though I can see how they would be lumped into the assault weapon category by appearance alone. One concern would be in how easy it is and how many options are available to make them into full-auto weapons. I'm also confused by how their appearance can be changed to such an extent that they don't necessarily look like the same weapon anymore.
Look at this:
And then you see things like this:
To someone like me who doesn't know a whole lot about guns, they're both pretty scarey if seen at a store or in a restaurant.
My wife's Japanese and I lived in S. Korea and Japan for over 7 years. During that time, a common question asked of me was if everybody in the US really carried guns in the open and just shot each other in the streets. Now, I know full well that no place in the world is entirely safe but I never had to worry about stray bullets walking through the seedier areas of Tokyo or Seoul. In fact, my wife has never gotten used to the idea that guns are so prevalent; she gets nervous around my neice's husband when he carries and he's a police officer.
It's not my intent to villify anyone. I believe in the basic right of Americans to own guns if they so choose but I also strongly believe in sensible restrictions for the public good. I don't know what the perfect solution is but I think that we, as a country, need to have a sane conversation rather than hiding behind old documents/out-dated concepts or hysterical, far left or right knee-jerk reactions.
to the above... you claim you are not an expert, but then in the next breath you claim that semi autos are easily converted to full auto... which is not factually true.
It takes a lot of expensive tools like milling/CNC machines and a lot of know how to make and modify the parts for full auto...
It is NOT easy.
So if you are smart enough to know you dont know much about guns, why are you still saying statements like the above when you dont even know if they are true or not... let alone believing them?
You should have told them, yes we shoot each other in the streets, but thats what you get when you wing the newspaper into my yard incorrectly. Its the only way to keep things civilized.
Then you should tell htme burgers are really made of People.
agnosto wrote: I don't know what the perfect solution is but I think that we, as a country, need to have a sane conversation rather than hiding behind old documents/out-dated concepts or hysterical, far left or right knee-jerk reactions.
To have a sane conversation both sides must be able to admit that they may be wrong. I have honestly never ran in to someone who is anti-guns that could entertain the thought that their position is wrong. Although honestly I don't think I've ever met a liberal that could entertain that thought at all
There was a time Was a loop hole in the law. Where you can buy a lower assembly "kit" to to make a 16/4 into a full auto. Think it lasted three months before it was shut down by slapping a additional amendment to the law to cover that portion
easysauce wrote: to the above... you claim you are not an expert, but then in the next breath you claim that semi autos are easily converted to full auto... which is not factually true.
It takes a lot of expensive tools like milling/CNC machines and a lot of know how to make and modify the parts for full auto...
It is NOT easy.
So if you are smart enough to know you dont know much about guns, why are you still saying statements like the above when you dont even know if they are true or not... let alone believing them?
The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.
Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.
Now, any thoughts on the real point I was trying to make or are you just interested in arguing the minutiae of my post?
@Gentleman_Jellyfish
A very valid point. I agree that (and actually stated so in my post) there are groups on both sides of the argument that a) have an agenda and b)could care less what anyone else thinks and are not interested in having a serious, intelligent discussion about the topic. In your opinion, what would it take to get both sides to the table (other than the proverbial swift kick)?
@Gentleman_Jellyfish
A very valid point. I agree that (and actually stated so in my post) there are groups on both sides of the argument that a) have an agenda and b)could care less what anyone else thinks and are not interested in having a serious, intelligent discussion about the topic. In your opinion, what would it take to get both sides to the table (other than the proverbial swift kick)?
Crime is on a downward trend, right? Maybe we can stop adding on laws, enforce the ones we have, and ride out this positive wave of downward trends
Crime is on a downward trend, right? Maybe we can stop adding on laws, enforce the ones we have, and ride out this positive wave of downward trends
Frazzled brought this up too. I agree, there's way too much legislation out there either restricting or opening up control and it's different in every state. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a single, rational nation-wide gun ownership law? I know local control people would go nuts but we already have other national laws for national issues....
easysauce wrote: to the above... you claim you are not an expert, but then in the next breath you claim that semi autos are easily converted to full auto... which is not factually true.
It takes a lot of expensive tools like milling/CNC machines and a lot of know how to make and modify the parts for full auto...
It is NOT easy.
So if you are smart enough to know you dont know much about guns, why are you still saying statements like the above when you dont even know if they are true or not... let alone believing them?
The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.
Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.
Now, any thoughts on the real point I was trying to make or are you just interested in arguing the minutiae of my post?
@Gentleman_Jellyfish
A very valid point. I agree that (and actually stated so in my post) there are groups on both sides of the argument that a) have an agenda and b)could care less what anyone else thinks and are not interested in having a serious, intelligent discussion about the topic. In your opinion, what would it take to get both sides to the table (other than the proverbial swift kick)?
Edit: messed up quote.
When was the last time a slide fire or select fire weapon was used in a crime in the US (that wasn't purchased from the Department of Justice I mean)?
Crime is on a downward trend, right? Maybe we can stop adding on laws, enforce the ones we have, and ride out this positive wave of downward trends
Frazzled brought this up too. I agree, there's way too much legislation out there either restricting or opening up control and it's different in every state. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a single, rational nation-wide gun ownership law? I know local control people would go nuts but we already have other national laws for national issues....
Thoughts?
We have that now. Its the 1968 Law. Stick with that, report felons, and nutjobs to the reporting entity NCIS like you're supposed to. Bam wammo there you go.
I'd even be ok with tacking on adding a NCIS (is it that I may be getting it confured with another regulatory entity I deal with) check to private sales or gifts to everyone but non family members.
Jihadin wrote: Colorado effective recall on Democrats comes to mind. The "Good Idea Fairy" might look good in government but the "People" might not like it
Valid point. So, realizing that there has to be some sort of legislation, would sane legislation look like. If it can't be federal, then maybe a great enough model that states would naturally follow-suit.
Frazzled wrote:When was the last time a slide fire or select fire weapon was used in a crime in the US (that wasn't purchased from the Department of Justice I mean)?
I don't know. I never made that point. I just made one, small comment about how such weapons have a history of being converted to full-auto. It was never central to any point that I was trying to make, just a comment. Interesting question though, I'll check.
Edit: Can't find anything on the FBI website though there was interesting data on firearm related crimes, they didn't break it down into type. I did a general search and just came up with arrests for posession of automatic weapons.
I've not heard of anyone converting their AR to select fire. Its a felony IIRC. Maybe the cartels do, but hey they have rocket launchers and armored vehicles now.
I've heard but never seen a bumpfire stock, but reviews are not good for it.
Admittedly I'm not a tacticool AR fan myself. My eyesight makes any rifle require a scope just slightly larger than the Hubble scope, so thats kinda meh for me. I have .22s with big scopes for plinking fun and Dad's M1, but otherwise its scattergun/pistol for me.
The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.
Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.
unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge or the wrong knowledge is often worse then at least knowing you know nothing. I do appreciate you being polite about it, so take this the nicest way possible
1: transferrable auto sears are class 3, and heavily regulated, and super expensive, IF you can even find one.
2: you cannot just drop them into a semi auto and convert it to full auto, you need a full auto lower, or do extensive machining to a semi lower as I have previously stated. If you have the tools/knowhow to conver SA lowers to FA lowers, you have the same tools/exp to make brand new FA firearms from solid blocks of aluminium.
This is what I mean when I say, and i mean this politely as I can, because you are a nice guy who is actually discussing the topic with me, which is appreciated
But you simply dont know what you are talking about, and simply GOOGLING this stuff will not help, as the internets are just full of total BS.
3: bump stocks do nothing more then pulling the trigger really, really fast, I can do the same thing without a bump stock. its less effective then full auto, or semi, as its harder to control.
4: I can shoot 30 rounds in ~ 20 seconds or less from a semi auto, I can shoot 30 rounds from a lever or bolt action in ~40 seconds. or less.. the difference is extremely small, and in the semi and lever's cases, the shots are actually aimed instead of sprayed. I can shoot 6 shots of 9mm pellets in .000001 seconds with a single shotgun pull.
In all these cases, it matters not how many shots you shoot, but how many times you hit, Full auto/bump fire shot at the rates you mention generally means you are missing with 28 out of the 30 shots at best. the semi/lever/shotgun will actually be aimed for each shot, and is far more deadly.
Again, I do appreciate that you are being appreciative of both sides here, I hope im not coming off as a jerk
Frazzled wrote: I've not heard of anyone converting their AR to select fire. Its a felony IIRC. Maybe the cartels do, but hey they have rocket launchers and armored vehicles now.
I've heard but never seen a bumpfire stock, but reviews are not good for it.
Admittedly I'm not a tacticool AR fan myself. My eyesight makes any rifle require a scope just slightly larger than the Hubble scope, so thats kinda meh for me. I have .22s with big scopes for plinking fun and Dad's M1, but otherwise its scattergun/pistol for me.
I likes me some shotgun though...
Yeah, I was into firearms when I was younger. I was on the shooting team for my Young Marines platoon and did quite a bit of hunting but I've never been a gun enthusiast. Being from Oklahoma, they were always around and I was educated to respect them and in safe use but never owned more than two at any given time. Personally, I don't fear assault weapons but I can understand those that do just as I can understand people who want absolute freedom to own any weapon they want. It's not the weapons or access to them that kills people, it's the idiots who are not gleaned from the gene-pool before they have an opportunity to go out and do harm. Darwinism is unfortunately well and truly dead.
Now that I'm old and crotchety, I'm with you, shotguns are the way to go.
Frazzled wrote: I avoid the issue by refusing to entertain thoughts.
It's still entertaining with the amount of mental ju-jitsu they go thru
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: There was a time Was a loop hole in the law. Where you can buy a lower assembly "kit" to to make a 16/4 into a full auto. Think it lasted three months before it was shut down by slapping a additional amendment to the law to cover that portion
Yup... now the workaround is buying the lower receiver unmilled.
The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.
Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.
unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge or the wrong knowledge is often worse then at least knowing you know nothing. I do appreciate you being polite about it, so take this the nicest way possible
1: transferrable auto sears are class 3, and heavily regulated, and super expensive, IF you can even find one.
2: you cannot just drop them into a semi auto and convert it to full auto, you need a full auto lower, or do extensive machining to a semi lower as I have previously stated. If you have the tools/knowhow to conver SA lowers to FA lowers, you have the same tools/exp to make brand new FA firearms from solid blocks of aluminium.
This is what I mean when I say, and i mean this politely as I can, because you are a nice guy who is actually discussing the topic with me, which is appreciated
But you simply dont know what you are talking about, and simply GOOGLING this stuff will not help, as the internets are just full of total BS.
3: bump stocks do nothing more then pulling the trigger really, really fast, I can do the same thing without a bumb stock. its less effective then full auto, or semi, as its harder to control.
4: I can shoot 30 rounds in ~ 20 seconds from a semi auto, I can shoot 30 rounds from a lever or bolt action in ~40 seconds... the difference is extremely small, and in all cases of "how many bullets can I spray in the least amount of time" the shots will have no aim to them. I can shoot 6 shots of 9mm pellets in .000001 seconds with a single shotgun pull.
No offense taken. Like I said, it was just a throw-away comment and one that I don't hold an opinion on one way or the other. Thanks for the info!
What I'm really interested in is what sane gun laws would look like. We don't want to restrict access to firearms by responsible people but then I don't think that everybody should just be able to walk into Academy and buy a semi-auto rifle and a crate of ammo (by crate I'm being hyperbolic but 500 round boxes...really?).
What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...
Maybe exceptions for shotguns or other hunting rifles. Which leads me to a question. I don't think it'd be ideal to hunt with an AR and I don't know anyone who would do so...my old 30-06 would have sufficed for deer and such.
Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.
The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.
Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.
unfortunately, a little bit of knowledge or the wrong knowledge is often worse then at least knowing you know nothing. I do appreciate you being polite about it, so take this the nicest way possible
1: transferrable auto sears are class 3, and heavily regulated, and super expensive, IF you can even find one.
2: you cannot just drop them into a semi auto and convert it to full auto, you need a full auto lower, or do extensive machining to a semi lower as I have previously stated. If you have the tools/knowhow to conver SA lowers to FA lowers, you have the same tools/exp to make brand new FA firearms from solid blocks of aluminium.
This is what I mean when I say, and i mean this politely as I can, because you are a nice guy who is actually discussing the topic with me, which is appreciated
But you simply dont know what you are talking about, and simply GOOGLING this stuff will not help, as the internets are just full of total BS.
3: bump stocks do nothing more then pulling the trigger really, really fast, I can do the same thing without a bumb stock. its less effective then full auto, or semi, as its harder to control.
4: I can shoot 30 rounds in ~ 20 seconds from a semi auto, I can shoot 30 rounds from a lever or bolt action in ~40 seconds... the difference is extremely small, and in all cases of "how many bullets can I spray in the least amount of time" the shots will have no aim to them. I can shoot 6 shots of 9mm pellets in .000001 seconds with a single shotgun pull.
No offense taken. Like I said, it was just a throw-away comment and one that I don't hold an opinion on one way or the other. Thanks for the info!
What I'm really interested in is what sane gun laws would look like. We don't want to restrict access to firearms by responsible people but then I don't think that everybody should just be able to walk into Academy and buy a semi-auto rifle and a crate of ammo (by crate I'm being hyperbolic but 500 round boxes...really?).
What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...
Maybe exceptions for shotguns or other hunting rifles. Which leads me to a question. I don't think it'd be ideal to hunt with an AR and I don't know anyone who would do so...my old 30-06 would have sufficed for deer and such.
well, I am from canuckistan, and here we are on the "way to harsh" side of gun control, but we do things that make a lot of sense,
IE; mandatory training for FA purchases, with more training required for certain guns, hey thats ok, as long as everyone has access to the training, and its strictly safty based criteria you have to meet, that shouldnt infringe on the 2nd IMO. Our background checks are also universal, regardless if its a private sale or not.
the tricky part is when you get into licensing and registraion, as those always lead to confiscation, even if promises are made that they will not. I was a supporter of those things here but then when they started banning/confiscating things using them, I realized why its not a good thing to have.
much better to have a registry of those NOT allowed to own Firearms, as its easier to maintain, and provides a much better filter for preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands.
This statement has almost nothing to do with a sane relationship with the Bill of Rights. Did you just fall out of bed and miss over 200 years of jurisdprudence?
The past 200 years of Jurisprudence agree with my interpretation. As D-USA points out;
Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.
Its funny how people change tune with the Constitution (wasn't I accused of that like, a page ago?). It is the law. The highest law of the land, given that the government can't not do what it says under normal circumstance. The flaw with too many Americans is they treat the Constitution like a Fundamentalist treats the Bible.
Frazzled wrote: I've not heard of anyone converting their AR to select fire. Its a felony IIRC. Maybe the cartels do, but hey they have rocket launchers and armored vehicles now.
In this case rule 35 applies: if it can be done to a gun, it will be done to a gun.
If cartels can do it, so can the "law abiding" citizens frequenting militia rallies.
Ahtman wrote: You can change attitudes toward the Second Amendment without amending it. We know this because it has happened over the last 200 years. This idea that things mean the exact same thing and have been interpreted the same throughout our history is just silly.
The OP article says as such (and I posted a short version in another gun thread a month ago) but as expected, no one cares Doesn't fit their personal narrative of freedom.
What I'm really interested in is what sane gun laws would look like. We don't want to restrict access to firearms by responsible people but then I don't think that everybody should just be able to walk into Academy and buy a semi-auto rifle and a crate of ammo (by crate I'm being hyperbolic but 500 round boxes...really?).
500 rounds in a rifle is a weekend of 3-gun. That's really not that much.
What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...
Is the state paying for it? If so, I'd be fine with it. Requiring classes for CCW is different because its not placing additional qualifications on owning the firearm, but simply how you can carry it. In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.
Maybe exceptions for shotguns or other hunting rifles. Which leads me to a question. I don't think it'd be ideal to hunt with an AR and I don't know anyone who would do so...my old 30-06 would have sufficed for deer and such.
Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.
cincydooley wrote: In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.
Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.
and you can just swap the upper out to any caliber you want from 308 to .50 too.
its one of the best hunting rifles there is... I hate how anything with a telescoping stock seems to be scoffed at for hunting... some of us dont fit the one size fits all solid stocks after all!
Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.
and you can just swap the upper out to any caliber you want from 308 to .50 too.
its one of the best hunting rifles there is... I hate how anything with a telescoping stock seems to be scoffed at for hunting... some of us dont fit the one size fits all solid stocks after all!
I use my AR-10 for big game. .308 round is one of the more accurate ones out there, and has all the stopping power you should ever need.
Breotan wrote: Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.
Depends on your set up, and shooting placement. Whenever I was rockin the 240 or 249 in the army, My groupings were almost perfectly circular (the "ice cream cone effect"
But yeah... Any more, even if it were 100% legal to own and shoot as I pleased, owning something like a BAR, 240, M60 or the like would be almost purely something that would be a wall decoration or similar.
Breotan wrote: Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.
Depends on your set up, and shooting placement. Whenever I was rockin the 240 or 249 in the army, My groupings were almost perfectly circular (the "ice cream cone effect"
But yeah... Any more, even if it were 100% legal to own and shoot as I pleased, owning something like a BAR, 240, M60 or the like would be almost purely something that would be a wall decoration or similar.
*shrugs* Things on the mexican border keep deteriorating, folks might want some of them.
cincydooley wrote: In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.
The solution is simple: state IDs are free.
Did you conveniently forget the part of my quote where I said if it was free I'd be fine with it?
Didn't they legislate that they couldn't have anymore legislators because the House was becoming too big
Did they? I've honestly never heard of this.
Pretty sure. The Constitution calls for a Representative per a certain number of citizens. As time went on the House kept getting bigger and we set the House to a fixed number and began appropriating Reps by percentage of population instead.
Yeah, something like that; EDIT: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" The House was fixed to 435 in 1911.
Breotan wrote: Who cares? Why would anyone want a fully automatic weapon anyway? Your first and second rounds would hit your target but muzzle climb would make the rest of them miss by a country mile. And don't give me that's spiel about suppressing fire. You ain't doing that as part of home defense, much less doing it effectively by yourself.
My "hat in the ring" so to speak when it comes to the gun debate is as a WWII reenactor. We want automatic weapons so we can have a better experience. Sure, we can use bolt actions/semi autos but it isnt the same. We already have to get fake machine guns for the tanks and nothing is more awkward than when the thing inevitably breaks down in combat.
To someone like me who doesn't know a whole lot about guns, they're both pretty scarey if seen at a store or in a restaurant.
My wife's Japanese and I lived in S. Korea and Japan for over 7 years. During that time, a common question asked of me was if everybody in the US really carried guns in the open and just shot each other in the streets. Now, I know full well that no place in the world is entirely safe but I never had to worry about stray bullets walking through the seedier areas of Tokyo or Seoul. In fact, my wife has never gotten used to the idea that guns are so prevalent; she gets nervous around my neice's husband when he carries and he's a police officer.
It's not my intent to villify anyone. I believe in the basic right of Americans to own guns if they so choose but I also strongly believe in sensible restrictions for the public good. I don't know what the perfect solution is but I think that we, as a country, need to have a sane conversation rather than hiding behind old documents/out-dated concepts or hysterical, far left or right knee-jerk reactions.
To tell the truth, I am more worried about alcohol being involved somehow in the injury or death of a loved one or myself than a gun.
Some government statistics I like to point to when the subject of guns comes up:
The number of people murdered by guns during a year:
This is in addition to all the other negative effects alcohol has, as talked of by the CDC
The question I usually ask people that say guns are evil because they kill people is if they drink or distribute alcohol at parties, etc., since they are putting people more at risk than someone with a gun.
I know you're not directly saying that, but I am just putting this out for your consideration.
Charles Whitmen only used hunting rifles and killed 12 people from the clock tower in Arlington and he killed another 3 people with a shotgun; so dis-including hunting rifles here is a bit silly. As to hunting with an AR: why not? They're plenty accurate and 5.56 is big enough to put down a deer or boar.
"And do you pukes know who taught him how to shoot?" "That's right, the United States Marine Corps"
(sorry, i do love me the beginning part of Full Metal Jacket )
I do agree that it is ludicrous to "force" people to attend a class simply to own a firearm. Carry/ concealed carry is a different matter though. And I agree that a simple State Issued ID card should be free*
*provided they are US citizens, or are permanent and legal alien/immigrant status.
44Ronin wrote: You need a social contract to drive a car, so why not have one to own a weapon.
No need to run interpretations on a no longer relevant and archaic document
The NICS background checks are basically that "social contract" for gun owners. getting a CCW license (where applicable) is much the same... Instead of working as a driving license does (which says, "I will not disobey traffic laws") it works from the opposite side (I have not broken laws that eliminate my right to arms)
Jihadin wrote: One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka
Don't make fun of the US Constitution.
Being the US Constitution had a hand in saving Aussie's from Japan in the 40's
You'd never guess what has become a reasonably common theory over here. "The Japanese would have totally stopped in PNG if they had beaten the choccos, they totally would have guys"
Jihadin wrote: One of the many rules in the Fight Club...of Dakka
Don't make fun of the US Constitution.
Being the US Constitution had a hand in saving Aussie's from Japan in the 40's
You'd never guess what has become a reasonably common theory over here. "The Japanese would have totally stopped in PNG if they had beaten the choccos, they totally would have guys"
Japan did not even have the logistics to invade Australia, and the Imperial Army was against any potential invasion.
The "Australia saving" idea is a common misconception
if the anti gun side is in the right, why do they constantly
either out right lie about things, or at the very best, spew their ignorance like its fact regarding calling things that are NOT assault rifles, assault rifles, and purposely using the incorrect terminolgy for many things, simply because its the more scary word to use.
Far too often, outright lies are presented as fact, and policies around those lies are attempted to be pushed through... just like the "glocks can go through scanners" BS, and numerous other examples.
Their argument should stand on its own if its a good one, that it doesnt, and they have to resort to demonizing gun owners and particular "looks scary" guns just shows there is no leg to stand on.
What do you think about requiring a safety course for firearm ownership ownership. We already have background checks. Most applicable states have course requirements for conceal-carry. And I had to take a hunter education course before I could apply for and receive a hunting license...
Is the state paying for it? If so, I'd be fine with it. Requiring classes for CCW is different because its not placing additional qualifications on owning the firearm, but simply how you can carry it. In my opinion, forcing someone to pay for a class to own a gun is no different than forcing someone to own a state issued ID to vote.
I know. It was in the comment you quoted and responded to.
cincydooley wrote: Did you conveniently forget the part of my quote where I said if it was free I'd be fine with it?
So state actions are free?
Look at you, you crafty editing devil you.
You just saw it, right there, dincha?
If the state wants to require the classes free of charge I'd be fine with it. Despite the fact that, even though state IDs are free if charge, people still don't want to require them to vote.
If they want to require it for ownership and force people to pay for it, it would inappropriate and unconstitutional.
They were reservists, and you are right on what chocco means, chocolate soldier. I always heard it was because the regular army thought they'd melt in battle, but theres variations on that.
Between the Australians and allies that would have met them, they didn't want to try, although I imagine it was tense times because no one knew for sure.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?
Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?
Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.
Guess I shoulda put this face: up to show that I wasn't serious
And I woulda thought that putting 'Murica in the comment would be a decent clue as well
If they want to require it for ownership and force people to pay for it, it would inappropriate and unconstitutional.
Honestly, if we're discussing changing how the 2nd amendment works (or at least how it's interpreted), you can't shoot an idea down by saying it's unconstitutional.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Was this before, or after 'Murica stepped in and saved y'all?
Ever. Japan didn't have the capacity to launch an attack that far successfully. Most of the islands they took they knew they couldn't hold. They just hoped they'd get to keep some of the nicer ones when we got tired of fighting. Turned out we were a lot more willing to fight them than they anticipated. They weren't going to invade Australia. it would escalate their conflict with Great Britain, the opposite of what they wanted. They couldn't win the battle anyway and they knew it so they never intended to try.
Maybe short term.
Long term, they likely would have kept the pattern of aggression.
And they would still have conducted air raids and generally made life miserable.
And if they hadn't pissed off America they would probably have been much bolder. America wasn't interested in fighting yet and things weren't looking like anyone wanted to get involved in the war on a proactive level. Pearl Harbor is what got America in gear. Japan didn't just poke the bear, they came up behind it and touched it with a cattle prod(against the advice of some of their generals)
Frankly, Great Britain was in no condition to fight both Japan and Germany. Japan would have more or less had free reign over Asia if they hadn't gone to war with the US.
Long term, they likely would have kept the pattern of aggression.
Yeah, but at that point you're talking fantasy, not history. WWII didn't go that way, and never came close to going that way, so talking about what aggressive plans may have followed WWII for Imperial Japan is kind of relegated to the realm of implausibility.
And if they hadn't pissed off America they would probably have been much bolder.
Fighting us was them being bolder. America wasn't as opposed to war with Japan as is sometimes portrayed. Opposed to war with Germany at the time yes, but not with Japan. We'd had escalating tensions with them going on 20 years. The South East Pacific was as much a powder keg in the 1930's as the Balklands in the 1910's. Japan wanted to move south and seize oil rich islands from the Dutch, British, and French. To do so would force them to bypass the Philipinnes which was logistically impossible. They needed those islands. There wasn't any way around that. We knew it. They knew it. Both sides knew the war was coming (Billy Mitchell called it first ).
There was no way for Japan to get what they wanted without fighting us. We were already on edge with them over China. If they started aggressive expansion southward even by risking long logistic lines by not taking the Philippines, we'd have gotten involved, and they knew we would as much as we did. They chose to strike first rather than pretend otherwise, but like I said. They horribly underestimated our ability and willingness to fight them (It's kind of a trait of all the Axis powers really ).
EDIT: Hell just look at how hard they tried to calm us down over numerous blunders in China, like when they fired on a US ship and when one of their soldier's slapped a US ambassador during Nanking. We demanded apologies and got them, they paid us for damages to our ship, even disciplines the soldier involved in the Allison Incident. They were really big on trying to keep us out of their business in Asia. They really didn't want to fight us, but they ran out of options. If that's not bold I'm not sure what is.
And that's all a separate issue from them invading Australia. Britain may have been heavily involved in Europe, but they maintained a fighting force in Asia. They chose to be on a more defensive posture so long as Japan was content to focus mostly on us, but an attack on Australia would have forced Britain's hand. They'd have taken a more aggressive stance, one that would be disastrous for a Japan stress already on all fronts between the US, and China, as well as the fear of a Russian invasion. They did not want to risk escalation with Britain.
EDIT: And for those wanted a great read; Fighting Ships of the Rising Sun, a definitive text on the Japanese Imperial Navy and Japanese grand strategy. Finding a copy of your own would be hard (I paid $120 for mine) but many copies can be found in libraries.
Fighting us was them being bolder. America wasn't as opposed to war with Japan as is sometimes portrayed. Opposed to war with Germany at the time yes, but not with Japan. We'd had escalating tensions with them going on 20 years. The South East Pacific was as much a powder keg in the 1930's as the Balklands in the 1910's. Japan wanted to move south and seize oil rich islands from the Dutch, British, and French. To do so would force them to bypass the Philipinnes which was logistically impossible. They needed those islands. There wasn't any way around that. We knew it. They knew it. Both sides knew the war was coming (Billy Mitchell called it first ).
I recall reading certain "history" books where they took the position that FDR was publicly decrying, and suggesting that we didn't want to fight anyone in WW2, but in "private" diplomatic meetings, he, and the Ambassadors to Japan were definitely pushing Japan's buttons trying to push them to "fire the opening salvo"... It wasn't anything overt like them standing with their arms wide saying "come at me bro", it was more subtle, in their actions like punctuality for meetings, and other small actions that offended Japanese traditions and whatnot.
Ah yes. The good old Roosevelt made Pearly Harbor happen history I hear it was going to be the plot of National Treasure 3; We Totally Never Cared About History Give Nick Cage More Money
LordofHats wrote: Ah yes. The good old Roosevelt made Pearly Harbor happen history I hear it was going to be the plot of National Treasure 3; We Totally Never Cared About History Give Nick Cage More Money
Yeah... it's just something I recall reading... and since I cant remember the book, or the author should tell you something about whether I think it was actually legit
Gaffes like that are common in diplomacy. Especially in the racist times that were the most of the 20th century. The idea that they were part of some scheme by Roosevelt to entice Japan to strike first is really silly. Many in his administration (himself included) did believe war with Japan was inevitable come the late 30's. They didn't know when but they knew it was coming. A lot of the 'evidence' that they were trying to instigate the conflict was really attempts to try and dissuade Japan from fighting using the typical international politics of the time; carry a bigger stick and make sure to show it off (International politics are about 50% brain dead stupidity).
If the state wants to require the classes free of charge I'd be fine with it. Despite the fact that, even though state IDs are free if charge, people still don't want to require them to vote.
If they want to require it for ownership and force people to pay for it, it would inappropriate and unconstitutional.
State IDs are not universally free, or universally accepted, but otherwise we're on the same page.
Honestly, if we're discussing changing how the 2nd amendment works (or at least how it's interpreted), you can't shoot an idea down by saying it's unconstitutional.
A good point.
LordofHats wrote: (International politics are about 50% brain dead stupidity).
Double points for international politics that are considered domestically.
