2nd Amendment Regulation

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However, they can use their full auto guns for their own target practice and shooting events, outside of any government or command authority. They just have to supply their own ammo.

True, but I think they have some pretty stiff rules about where they can take them loaded and how they are stored. I will look for the rule list but the one I read a while back was pretty exhaustive. I will look for it.

Otherwise, I like more of your points now. I might add a few restrictions to the full autos but I think we are going down a reasonable path. I still think we in the USA have gone far beyond the militia of 1790 and the Swiss model which I like notwithstanding, I think warfare has gotten too complicated for even the type of army we had in World War II. A really good read on that is "An Army at Dawn" by Rick Atkinson.

One thing good about Iraq in my opinion is that it has really brushed up in a good way the National Guard. I used to evaluate them when I was a youngster back on active duty and by and large they were pretty bad. I would have hated to take them into combat with me. Vietnam ruined them IMHO. Iraq and Afganistan has made them very combat effective and ready.

Good article by Kopel. I like reading him. What did you think of the clip I posted?

 

[Socrates]

Well, you have to keep in mind Rodney King.

During the riots, The Pacific Palisades residents setup barriers, brought out their rifles, and protected their property against marauding rioters, driving in cars. Where were the police? THEY DON'T HAVE ANY. I believe it's called being in an 'unincorporated' area, meaning you have no police protection, and, are on your own. Burglary? Police won't even come out. You have to drive into L.A., find a station, and file a report.

Also, the police followed the same tactics the fire fighters did:
They pulled out of the area, let the rioting run it's course, and, the fires. Now, this wasn't a war, but, it certainly called for tactics, firearms, and the ability to protect yourself.

On top of this, the Koreans, smart enough to actually have guns in the riot area, and, protecting their property, were later prosecuted because of news choppers.:barf:

TG: You've had a charmed life. I really think you need to get out into reality a little. Come spend some time in East L.A., or Hunter's Point in San Francisco, and get a deep understanding of the situations others face. While I realize
people's opinion's are shaped by their experience, I suggest you broaden yours, and, your opinions might change.

We are being invaded from Mexico, by the way. The number of gangs, and organzied groups bringing in drugs is really scary, and, the Mexican Police are probably the worst offenders. There are situations where full-auto weapons would be helpful, and, the concept of suppressive fire is instinctual...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I believe it's called being in an 'unincorporated' area, meaning you have no police protection, and, are on your own.

Roger that. I have lived in those places before. And speaking strictly tactics I would be just fine with either my AR-15 or even a plain old hunting rifle. Now, I have been to some other places in the world which you would need a bit more which leads me to:

TG: You've had a charmed life. I really think you need to get out into reality a little. Come spend some time in East L.A., or Hunter's Point in San Francisco, and get a deep understanding of the situations others face.

My friend Socrates You have really no idea where I have been or been through. If you knew me even slightly you would know I have certainly not led a "charmed" life. I have had a few blessings though.

Sometimes it is easier to focus more on where disagree than where we agree. I think people no matter where they live have a right to defend themselves against riots or just a stupid burglar. I am not anti-gun. I just don't think ALL types of weapons should be available to everybody. I don't think rocket launchers or full auto would have been a good thing to add into the LA riots mix.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

the concept of suppressive fire is instinctual

and inappropriate for civilian self defense. Why? Because the chance of hitting innocents is great. How do I know? I have seen it

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
If my neighbor Joe is too stupid to become familiar with his weapon, I'd be concerned and frightened at him having any sort of weapon at all, regardless of it's operation.

Quote:
If someone's too dumb and/or irresponsible to follow that, they probably shouldn't have a gun of any type.

But they have a constitutional right to have one? Now we are getting somewhere. This is not a gotcha but you just revealed something with that comment.

You can't exercise prior restraint by making joe citizen either safe or competent in the use of the weapon prior to his using it. Unless you believe that we should take competency tests to own firearms like the idiots in DC want to do. But after the fact is too late.

The problem with public safety that I see boils down to this. I don't know you but you might be competent and trustworthy enough to own a suitcase nuke. You might own one and never cause or have a problem with it. Noww do I know that with any reasonable expectation of accuracy? If I am wrong then we might have a great problem. I don't and so I must regulate who gets to be around them and that might include a competency test. That is why for instance I also support mandatory training to obtain a CCW.

Did you read my hypothetical situation about Joe bump firing his semi-auto AR? My point was that no matter what regulation you put in place, a determined idiot will always find a way around it and the result can be worse than if the restriction wasn't there in the first place. It could be argued that it would be better for Joe to be armed with a M16 because he can at least aim that full-auto fire wheras he can't when bump-firing from the hip, so while he may pose a public safety hazard he could possibly pose a greater public safety hazard with the semi-auto. Or suppose Joe goes out and buys a semi-auto AR and decides he wants to "improve" it by trying to mess with the sear and make it full-auto (yes that's illegal but that's not going to stop a determined moron). That night, Joe hears something go bump so he grabs his homemade machinegun but when he fires, it won't stop firing until the magazine is empty. Certainly that's just as great if not greater public safety hazard as the M16 is. Since Joe isn't going to let a little thing like the law get in his way, wouldn't it be better if he were able to get something that was at least designed to safely operate in the manner he's going to use it rather than dangerously modifying something to do something it wasn't intended to?

Since a much higher degree of control is exercised over soldiers in the military the risk is lower.

I suspect that the degree of control exercised over soldiers is there for more than just safe gunhandling. Could it be that strict discipline is enforced so that the soldier won't stop and question his orders in a hectic combat situation. While the military's style of discipline does produce safe gunhandling, I don't think that it's necessary to do so. Certainly the military constraints on speaking freely aren't needed to keep people from inducing mass panic in crowded public places.

Quote:
I believe it's called being in an 'unincorporated' area, meaning you have no police protection, and, are on your own.

Roger that. I have lived in those places before. And speaking strictly tactics I would be just fine with either my AR-15 or even a plain old hunting rifle. Now, I have been to some other places in the world which you would need a bit more which leads me to:

Is it impossible that our country could ever become like the places you describe? I'm sure anyone who lived through Katrina would tell you that the situation in NO was quite a bit different than what a citizen would normally have to defend themself from. Before, the sceptics would call me paranoid, but now it's already happened once. When faced with what could quite easily be described as an angry mob (complete with pitchforks and torches if it makes the image more vivid), I can see where supressive fire might be quite useful.

I don't think rocket launchers or full auto would have been a good thing to add into the LA riots mix.

Depends on which side has them. People who had normal firearms were better able to defend themselves in NO because it was easier for the BGs to find an unarmed victim. However, at least theoretically, regular firearms were available to both sides. Why is that? I think it's because the firearms presence acted as a deterrent and I can think of few things that are going to deter me from my actions better than seeing and/or hearing a burst of fully-automatic fire.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Since Joe isn't going to let a little thing like the law get in his way, wouldn't it be better if he were able to get something that was at least designed to safely operate in the manner he's going to use it rather than dangerously modifying something to do something it wasn't intended to?

No, we need to put Joe in jail not arm him.

I suspect that the degree of control exercised over soldiers is there for more than just safe gunhandling.

True, but civilians have no control exercised over them for either safe gun handling or control of fires. That is why military arms in their hands are dangerous to public safety without regulation.

Is it impossible that our country could ever become like the places you describe?

Rhetorically, I guess nothing is impossible, however no I can't foresee that happening in any way which would convince me to relax regulation of certain military weapons.

When faced with what could quite easily be described as an angry mob (complete with pitchforks and torches if it makes the image more vivid), I can see where supressive fire might be quite useful.

That's not supressive fire. That's area denial. I stand by my statement about suppressive fire even though I might face death by a million scenarios.

Damn, I thought we were making progress.

 

[tyme]

the concept of suppressive fire is instinctual...
and inappropriate for civilian self defense. Why? Because the chance of hitting innocents is great. How do I know? I have seen it

That's why I personally don't get excited over full-auto weapons. However, some firearms are not made in semi-auto versions, so banning full-auto import or manufacture for civilians means that those firearms are essentially banned. That's my main (practical and personal) gripe with the MG ban. Some companies simply don't give a damn about individual firearms ownership, and thus aren't willing to make semi-auto versions. In an ideal world, I think any company selling small-arms to a government or military should be required to sell to private individuals (or distributors that sell to private individuals) as well. I would buy a few currently-unimportable machineguns at uninflated prices just to shoot them as semi-autos.

However impractical (due to inaccuracy) or unwise (risk to innocent bystanders) it may be for an average civilian to shoot full-auto for self defense or hunting, you and everyone else who advocates maintaining or increasing MG regulation have, IMO, failed to persuasively argue that such policy is constitutional, or that it makes a significant difference in crime.

How many people would actually use full-auto for criminal purposes when they can't be bothered to get a [black market] full-auto firearm currently? If full-auto was as easy to get as semi-auto, how many psychos like Cho Seung-Hui do you think would get a full-auto firearm, walk into a classroom, start shooting, and end up hitting one or two people and a lot of ceiling tiles (or having the gun jam) before getting tackled/beaten/disarmed? Do you honestly think a MG ban would mitigate the risk from some psycho willing to train to use a MG properly? Don't you think they might perhaps go to some minor trouble to get an illegal machinegun or two, given the effort required to train properly?

Anyone can come up with hypothetical scenarios where a MG ban or heavy regulation might save the day. However, some of the worst laws we have in any area (not just firearms) are the result of similar fear-mongering.

So I'd even go this far. If you want to own a class 3 firearm, you must go through the instant NICS background check. You must have been in the military and discharged honorably, or you must attend a course where you would be trained to use a full auto type firearm, just as CCW holders must attend training. Once you've accomplished the course, you too can purchase and possess a class 3 firearm after an NICS background check.

I don't categorically object to background screening for violent criminals and true mental cases (if they have to be running around in society to begin with), but I dislike the entire convoluted FFL system that such screening requires. It's not that I don't want background screening, but the regulatory infrastructure is unconstitutional, mostly futile, and not worth the few if any lives it saves. I'm sorry if that seems callous, but if you honestly want to save lives, then TBH you should be campaigning against the 4th amendment, or trying to ban motor vehicles.

I have no problem with firearms education including full-auto training, ideally as part of basic schooling. However, in the real world such schemes invariably mutate into firearms-licensing programs, where the state overcharges for the initial license, then gets periodic kickbacks every few years (for what should be a right... responsibly-exercised but a right nonetheless). Licensing is bad enough when it's for vehicles, which is only necessary when they're used in public anyway.... very much unlike how guns are used (not used in public except for violent crimes or to protect against serious crimes, in the latter case the competing harms doctrine renders licensing totally unnecessary to begin with... what's licensed is not the ability to use the gun legally, but to carry a hunk of metal around... total garbage).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Don't you think they might perhaps go to some minor trouble to get an illegal machinegun or two, given the effort required to train properly?

The only thing that will stop a psycho like Cho is a bullet. Machine gun or no.

 

[BillCA]

Since TG likes to repeatedly remind us that there is a difference between a .22 bolt rifle and a Stinger missle (I stopped counting at 7 references), let's stop this silly business.

Thank you Bill I am really tired of the question.

This was not in deference to your claims. I was tired of your using what I consider rhetoric and exaggerated examples.

For instance, the AR-15 and M-16 rifles are not different weapons. In the 1970's, the Colt AR-15 was marketed to civilians. A friend had S/N 00211 and another friend had one with a 13,000 range serial number. Both rifles could accept the full-auto components as drop-ins with the exception of needing to drill a single hole.

To prove the point, the owner of 00211 took his AR to the base (with permission) and stripped it down along with an M-16. With a simple substitution of a couple of minor parts, his AR-15 worked fine with the M-16 components. And the reverse was true of building an AR-15 on the M16 lower receiver. (And yes, he did make sure all the original AR parts were back in his rifle afterwards.)

To say that the M16 and AR-15 rifles are somehow sufficiently different enough to justify the idea they are "too dangerous" for civilians to own, isn't just misleading, it's an outright falsehood.

Arms like Stinger missles, bazookas, TOW/HEAT rockets and artillery certainly are unusual weapons which do not have much practical use in non-military life.

And all full auto weapons do like a .50 cal M2 or SAW? This sounds like you are adopting my position.

So, you think the line is drawn at full auto and that would include any type of full auto (M-60, SAW, M2 50 cal, etc) because they are less dangerous than cannon? Are you saying that only these weapons should be dropped from NFA regulation or should we throw the whole thing out?

Are you drawing the line at weapons whose shells explode?

I am certainly not adopting your position.

I'd personally prefer NFA-34 to go away. If we adopt the position that the NFA never existed and then decide what kinds of "arms" constitute "unusual and dangerous" then we might make some progress.

As I said earlier, I agree with Justice Scalia's opinion and his definition that the Second Amendment applies prima facie to all bearable arms. Certainly the M-16, M-60, M-249 and even the M1919 .30 BMG are arms we can consider capable of being carried afield. The Ma-Duece is certainly carryable...though I don't want to be the one to lug it on a 20 mile forced march.

We could easily adopt the position (I think) that arms which were designed to fire non-explosive projectiles and are able to be borne into combat should not be subject to restriction as "unusual or dangerous".

I do think that we could regulate explosive munitions such as cannon shells, grenades and mines. The logic is relatively simple and I think they would also fit in the category of "unusual and dangerous" arms. The logic says that explosives have several issues that make them unsuitable. First, some types of explosive devices deteriorate over time and, unlike firearms ammo, become dangerously "unstable". Second, many cannot be safely "disarmed" for re-storage. Third, they are area-munitions and non-discriminatory in use. Fourth, mass storage of these articles can result in catastrophic disaster if something goes wrong.

However, if you wanted to own an operational 155mm howitzer, that's fine and dandy. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out with your new lawn decoration. However, expect some fun federal & state paperwork for approvals and strict regulations on the purchase, possession, storage and use of any non-blank ammunition. Blank ammunition might be okay, provided you're not firing it from your suburban back yard just for kicks (then we get into disturbing the peace and similar problems).

Here is a quote I read from the ACLU site. How would you respond?

The quote from the American Communist's Legal Union does not impress. It contains exaggerated rhetoric and illogical assumptions. Just because the ACLU cannot fathom how to wage a war against a numerically inferior but technologically superior force does not mean such a war cannot be successfully fought. Ask the Vietnamese or the anti-soviet Afghans. Their position that the right is totally unlimited is as specious as your argument that only "civilian" arms, not military ones, can be possessed by citizens.

"Well regulated" and organised are different concepts. Portions of the militia can be well practiced in the use of firearms, yet be entirely unorganised, or conversely be strangers to the use of arms yet be highly organised.

You are using sophistry again. This sounds like Bill Clinton arguing about what the word "is" means. According to my dictionary unorganized means: not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole. Regulated means: to bring order, method, or uniformity to.

Your positions that we have an unorganized well-regulated militia is without logical or reason. The COTUS says well-regulated period. The Militia Act of 1903 not the COTUS came up with the idea of orgnanized and unorganized militias to which you cling. The unorganized militia is nothing more than a pool of people eligible for the membership in the well regulated militia.

I think you are misinterpreting the concepts. In the 1770's there were two types of Militia. The select militia and simply the militia. The select militia were a paid force, akin to today's National Guard. They were paid to train, stay ready for use and used as a policing force against indians, invaders and brigands. The militia, as a whole, were people who could and would defend their own territories and perhaps those of their neighboring towns or counties.

"Unorganized" versus "well regulated" is not a difficult concept. The unorganized militia remains so until they are called to service. The concept was that states form their own militia units, electing their own officers and commanders. These people would organize the called-up militia into units, if they were not already a part of a designated unit.

Well-regulated simply referred to competence in arms and the ability to fight as people united against a common enemy. This involved taking orders, having & bringing suitable arms, maintaining their gear, acting as a unified group and, of course, being able to handle their weapons effectively. It does not guarantee a force as efficient, effective or as dedicated as a professional force.

I should also note that my view is that if we quit trying to force our children to remain "children" for 20 years, our country would be a lot better off. I've seen kids trained to fire rifles and pistols who exhibit the same innocent enjoyment of life as other kids, but who also understand what it means to be responsible. If we carefully trained our youth to arms (including legal, moral and ethical aspects) we might see much less violence. More people would be familiar with (and less afraid of) firearms and much more disciplined in their use.

I see little difference in an 18 year-old solider carrying and using his issued M-16 as compared to an 18 year-old civlian with an interest in lawful use. You speak of being responsible to a "chain of command". The civilian certainly is also. It's called the legal system - the police and courts. The argument the the military system somehow makes young men "better able" to handle an M-16 doesn't wash.

 

[Socrates]

BillCA: You convinced me. Excellent read

All I'm after really, is equal firepower to the bad guys that are out there. I don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight, nor do I want to bring a pistol to a firefight, or a single shot, shotgun, rifle, or pistol.

TG:
What I don't really get is what happens when you get out?

I had a friend, armour in the Navy, forgot more about explosives, machine guns, etc. then most will ever know. He is a firearms genius, period. He gets out, loves full auto weapons, and the BATF goes after him. Why does he have to spend 3 years on probation, because he can't posess the very weapons that Uncle Sam taught him to love, and, that he ends up designing weapons for Uncle Sam?

Second case had to do with a friend that's a Nat. Guard Col, former SWAT. He as a tube from a Laws Rocket. At first, considering his position, I had NO PROBLEM with him having one, and, felt it was a great idea. NO guys running around with stolen tanks if his SWAT team was so armed. I feel the same about the situation in L.A. Cadillac with 8 gang bangers carrying AK 47's make for the baracade, shooting? Laws rocket works for me...Since he has a Class 3, he can legally own machine guns, and does. Bit disappointed when I found it had been used, and, was just the tube.

As I drive away, I ask myself WHY I can't legally own the same weapons he does? Good enough to pass security and checks for teaching, but, not good enough to own a machine gun?????

My point is we train a bunch of people, service folk, that, on finishing with the service, are fully trained, and qualified to own automatic weapons. I want them, and anyone else that wants one to have one.

I'm really curious what kind of weapons you think the people should have? Wonder what would have happened if ONE person on board the 9/11 planes had been armed?

Finally, one of these days, we are going to have more terrorist acts in this country. The more people with firearms, the more likely they are to be stopped. To be real, police, government, are really only good for cleaning up after the mess is made, not stopping it, or getting there while it occurs.

I KNOW gangs can get full auto weapons. What's the big deal? Also, in a firefight, why can't a police officer have a burst fire weapon?

Oh, and least we forget our lessons from the military:

There aren't a lot of shoulder fired rifles suitable for full auto, anyway. M14 kicks most people's tails.

Also, the effect of the Machine gun ban/lic. bull is to turn 300 dollar macs into 3500 dollar macs. I REALLY get mad when I see that. Wonder who really wanted the ban???

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This was not in deference to your claims. I was tired of your using what I consider rhetoric and exaggerated examples.

Darn, I thought I had won you over.

To say that the M16 and AR-15 rifles are somehow sufficiently different enough to justify the idea they are "too dangerous" for civilians to own, isn't just misleading, it's an outright falsehood.

That's your opinion Bill not fact. They are different weapons. Of course the Brady campaign would agree with you that they are the same and wish to ban the AR-15 as a result. You are giving them ammo to do so. Also, I never said civilians can't ever own them but just that they shouldn't have them without the restrictions we have in place with them.

I think you are misinterpreting the concepts.

No, I am reading the Militia Act of 1903 which defined the two militias. Where the breakdown occurs is in the quote I posted eariler about misguided folks trying to mix the organzied and unorganized militias up to get what they want, namely a bunch of Rambos with military weapons doing as they please and reporting to no one. Posted again:

To try to get around this problem, the militia advocates have seized upon the phrase "unorganized militia" in the US regulations. The subtle rhetoric trick here is to claim the "unorganized militia", (a term simply meaning eligible citizens) is the same as the "organized militia" (a term meaning near-army) - EXCEPT when it comes to any State and Federal controls. They thus try to have it both ways, all the good things about the term (military connotations), without any of the restraints implied (government authority). However, it's very much an invention without any basis in fact. They just hope no-one in the audience knows enough history to call them on it, and they're often right.

But the propaganda here has it exactly backwards. The whole "unorganized militia" aspect was a much later legislative maneuver for people to GET OUT of the real (i.e. "organized") militia, akin to say getting out of the draft by being shuffled into a "reserve draft" category. It was for people to escape the conscription-like service requirements, not a license for private paramilitary groups. The structural details of the militia system were concerned with the extremely difficult task of funding and running an effective military without having a large standing army, and had nothing to do with individual gun rights. "Unorganized militia" in modern terms was more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

I really think the real issue on this board and with the NFA has nothing to do with the militia. Full Auto and other mil weapons are a hobby now and I think a lot of folks here just want to get the price down so they can go play with them. There was a post earlier about that. I know a few people here in TN with full autos and they don't "train as part of a militia" they have money so they can go out to their farms and shoot for fun. I like having fun with guns and there is nothing wrong with that at all. I do it. Having fun shooting full auto was not why the Second Amendment was formulated. But Bill I find some of these militia arguments you are proposing as disingenious when I think you and I both know that the "militia" is not in play here but rather druthers and fun.

This whole idea of people in LA or New Orleans defending themselves with M2 .50 cal machinguns is far fetched, preposterious and disingenious.

"Unorganized" versus "well regulated" is not a difficult concept. The unorganized militia remains so until they are called to service. The concept was that states form their own militia units, electing their own officers and commanders. These people would organize the called-up militia into units, if they were not already a part of a designated unit.

Ok, I'll concede that and when you get called up THEN you get your machineguns (after training and evaluation)

You speak of being responsible to a "chain of command". The civilian certainly is also. It's called the legal system - the police and courts.

The courts and police are not the same as a Chain of Command. Have you served in the military? There is no comparison.

What I don't really get is what happens when you get out?

The training and knowledge is still there (for awhile) but the accountability is not. Your friend in the Navy was able to do a lot of things with weapons no doubt when he was in. So did I. BUT, he and I were restrained from doing unsafe things AND we couldn't do as we pleased wiht those weapons. I could not and neither could your friend take all these weapons home with us whenever we chose or take them out to a private farm and fire them if we wanted to without permission. If your friend or I did that without clearance (in which we would have to explain what we were doing and why) we would be in trouble, big trouble. With civilian laws nothing happens until somebody gets hurt or property gets damaged, maybe. The Air Force just fired one of its top guys because some nukes got moved around without proper clearance. That is the type control you need with military weapons concerning public safety. BTW if your friend got in trouble with the BATFE then he knew better!

Wonder who really wanted the ban???

You may have a point there! I have already commented on the '86 deal.

 

[USAFNoDak]

tyme posted:

I don't categorically object to background screening for violent criminals and true mental cases (if they have to be running around in society to begin with), but I dislike the entire convoluted FFL system that such screening requires. It's not that I don't want background screening, but the regulatory infrastructure is unconstitutional, mostly futile, and not worth the few if any lives it saves. I'm sorry if that seems callous, but if you honestly want to save lives, then TBH you should be campaigning against the 4th amendment, or trying to ban motor vehicles.

I have no problem with firearms education including full-auto training, ideally as part of basic schooling. However, in the real world such schemes invariably mutate into firearms-licensing programs, where the state overcharges for the initial license, then gets periodic kickbacks every few years (for what should be a right... responsibly-exercised but a right nonetheless). Licensing is bad enough when it's for vehicles, which is only necessary when they're used in public anyway.... very much unlike how guns are used (not used in public except for violent crimes or to protect against serious crimes, in the latter case the competing harms doctrine renders licensing totally unnecessary to begin with... what's licensed is not the ability to use the gun legally, but to carry a hunk of metal around... total garbage).

Tyme, I tend to agree with you on this post. However, we can't get there right away, so we are going to have to take incremental steps, whether we like it or not. I too would like to eventually see the NFA go away. I don't think background checks do anything to reduce crime. If they did, the gun controllers would be shouting the stats from the mountain tops. But, politically speaking, I don't see background checks going away in the very near future. It will take time to re educate the public that gun owners are not the problem. In fact, in some cases, we are part of the solution to keeping violent crime in check.

Washington, D.C. may play a HUGE role in the re education of the public. Imagine what will happen if D.C. eventually is forced to let people have semi automatic handguns with no licensing and registration. What will happen when their violent crime rate goes down? I firmly believe it will. We will have a Louiseville Slugger to beat the gun controllers over the head with. We can say, "See you turd balls. We've been telling you this for decades. Do you see the error of your ways now?" If we get to such a point, we stand an overwhelming chance of starting to repeal all sorts of other firearms control laws, which were passed in the name of "public safety", but did not deliver.

So don't be too hard on me for agreeing to take a little now. I have bigger aspirations for our future and will continue to fight and educate people I come across whenever and where ever I can. I believe, with political reality in sight, that we must incrementally take ground until eventually, we have the control again. This is already happening. Look at how many states have CCW shall issue laws. The AWB was allowed to sunset. We need to knock it down again if it comes up. The Heller decision is a huge deterent to it being brought back up. Morton Grove and Wilamette, IL both dropped enforcing their handgun bans. We have forced the Great One, Barack Obama, to at least publicly flip flop on the 2nd A. Yes, progress is being made. Heller is a big battle won. It will accelerate things. I firmly believe that. We must keep fighting. We must stay vigilant. We must stay united. We will win, eventually.

 

[zukiphile]

The heart of the offered objection to a broad reading of the 2d Am is authoritarian, an anxiety about people...

...doing as they please and reporting to no one.

Yet, that is the nature of civil liberties. We know how damaging careless words can be, yet people are permitted to speak "as they please and reporting to no one."

The courts and police are not the same as a Chain of Command. Have you served in the military? There is no comparison.

The core problem of a view of civil liberties forged by a couple decades of daily experience in the armed services is that it is a system in which civil liberties are drastically curtailed. While we have appropriate gratitude toward those who serve, we also have recognised historically that societies organised along the command and control features of a military service are enemies of the liberties our servies protect.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG wrote:

I have no issue with getting rid of he '86 amendment as I have stated before.

As a 21 year carreer Army officer, are you leading on this effort, or are you happy sitting back and not caring one way or the other whether the 86 ban is repealed? We need people like you to lead the charge when you disagree with gun control laws. You can bring credibility to the debate when you state that you are a carreer Army officer and a gun owner who believes the 86 machine gun ban should be repealed. Why wait for someone to send you a petition and to have you just be a signer? You then blend in with all of the other signers and we lose the opportunity to use your experience, title, and service to our country in a much more powerful manner than having your name be just one of many thousands on a petition.

You said you write letters to the editor and your congress critters regarding gun control and gun ownership. Great. I do to. I did a 4 year hitch in the USAF. A 21 year Army Officer with combat duty in his record can carry much more punch than I can. Lead, Sir. We'll fight for and with you.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A 21 year Army Officer with combat duty in his record can carry much more punch than I can. Lead sir.

Now you're getting nasty!#$^&&#$

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG posted:

Good article by Kopel. I like reading him. What did you think of the clip I posted?

If you are refering to the clip about the militia, I have several issues with it. First of all, it seemed to me to be an opinion piece, but that's OK. I didn't see a lot of "facts" presented to back up the opinion, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Here's my take on this whole issue, combining the 2nd A, the rights "of the people" and the well regulated militia.

1. From the writings of the framers, and from the grammatical structure of the 2nd A. as they wrote it, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, unalienable right. It does not rely on government for it's existence, as "Cruikshank" stated. The 2nd Amendment says that government SHALL NOT INFRINGE upon that right. So, the right to keep and bear arms, is in no way tied to the "well regulated" militia, as Justice Scalia pointed out. The "well regulated" militia clause was meant to highlight one of the very important aspects of why the right must be protected from infringement by the government. It had nothing to do with stating that the right is ONLY to be protected so that we would have a "well regulated" militia. Scalia also pointed this out, in so many words.

2. The meaning of well regulated as the founders meant it, could be up for debate. Some might say, in the context of the Second Amendment, it meant that the members of the militia, would be fluent and confident in their use and maintenence of firearms. This means they could be relied on to defend the "State" to some degree without the burdensome, day to day, or month to month training that the standing military or select militia must go through. The founders even stated that the best they could hope for, as far as training was concerned, is that the people would have arms and would know how to use them. Any other call ups for training would be too burdensome on the citizens.

3. Though the militias may have been used to suppress slave insurrections, as the guy in the video clip points out, that doesn't mean that they couldn't also be used to defend territory and augment the National Guard or the standing military forces for certain "military" or defense duties. I would never purport to use the "militia" to send abroad and fight. But, once they have been called up, they can fit into the command and control of the NG, the Army Reserve, etc, or the sheriffs department, to perform legitimate and lawful duties, some even being related to military duties. Just because a good idea is never utilized in every way it was meant to be, does not mean the idea is dead or a bad idea. This is what the man in the video seemed to be saying.

4. In US vs. Miller, I believe the court put too much emphasis on the "well regulated militia" clause. Scalia states that US vs. Miller was a cluster "----". I agree with him. It was so sloppy that it made it very easy for the gun control and gun ban crowd to push their agenda for the past 70 years. This led to Washington, D.C. believing they could ban all sorts of guns, because there was no militia for Washington, D.C. Heller has reversed that thinking, at least from a legal standpoint. Apparently, the government officials in D.C. either don't understand the Heller finding or they are willfully ignoring it.
I don't believe that we should be able to have ANY weapons which we can afford. Some are too dangerous to the public at large, and the government can make legitimate legal cases for narrowly regulating such weapons, and possibly even banning them. An ICBM would certainly be a candidate. Rockets would as well. States should keep some of those weapons to be used by the militia when called up to help defend the nation. The Federal government should pay for the states to purchase and keep such weapons, as the Feds are charged with "arming" the militias, according to the militia clause. That pertains more to the national guard. However, when the unorganized militia is called to duty, they should be able to use those weapons if they have been trained to do so in the past. If not, then they would rely on the firearms and ammunition they brought with them, when they were called up. Those weapons should be ones that are in common use at the time. This could certainly include an M16, in my opinion.

 

[zukiphile]

I do consider the standing Army we have today to be an enemy of liberty. The IRS, ATF, FBI, US Army, DEA, all of these organs are the standing federal army, and are the antithesis of a free people.

I would to if they were not under civilian control. Yet they are and your elected representatives can and do control them.

You speak of being responsible to a "chain of command". The civilian certainly is also. It's called the legal system - the police and courts.

The courts and police are not the same as a Chain of Command. Have you served in the military? There is no comparison.

This illustrates the difference between a rationale with which one arrives at a conclusion, and an argument offered but not believed in support of a position.

 

[USAFNoDak]

TG posted:

Now you're getting nasty!#$^&&#$

I'm bad to the bone, as George Thoroughgood states in his popular song.

I am quite serious, TG. The pro gun side could really use the help of gun owners who also carry the credentials that you do. The public will listen to what you have to say. Do you think the public would pay any attention to Wesley Clark if he didn't have his rank and history behind him? How about John Kerry? You have the credentials to be taken seriously. Thus, if you believe that a certain gun control law is infringing upon our rights, such as the 86 ban, we could use your leadership to lend credibility to our arguement.

If you sit back and wait for someone to draft a petition and then sign it, that's all well and good. However, it under utilizes the power you have to sway public opinion. I hope you didn't take offense at what I said. I respect your service to our country. I don't respect it when someone of your stature sits on the sideline and doesn't put 100% effort into changing a law that you disagree with, and is "infringing" on one our most important, God given, rights. You seemed to be saying, "You guys lead, and then I'll support you". I think it should be the other way around. Not only are you a fellow gun owner who believes in the right to keep and bear arms, you have the background and rank to lead more effectively than I do. I'll darn sure support you if you want to lead the attack on the 86 ban. You have my sword. (from Borimer, in Lord of the Rings).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

First of all, it seemed to me to be an opinion piece, but that's OK. I didn't see a lot of "facts" presented to back up the opinion, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Actually, I started another thread about my main point from this clip. So, my question is; If one of the reasons for the militia was to insurrect against the government if it became tyrannical then how could Congress then raise that militia to suppress said insurrection. Payton is using Art 1 sec 8 to refute the notion that a militia was extant to foment rebellion against tyranny. Indeed, when the south seceded and formed an army was how that would happen. Not through the militia.

Those weapons should be ones that are in common use at the time. This could certainly include an M16, in my opinion.

What others would be in common use. And the real question is: In common use by who?

 

[USAFNoDak]

If one of the reasons for the militia was to insurrect against the government if it became tyrannical then how could Congress then raise that militia to suppress said insurrection.

If the government was not being tyrannical, and was operating within its constitutional boundaries, but some radical group decided to overthrow it, the government could call out the militia, if it thought that necessary, and the militia members and the states would likely comply and fight to suppress such an insurrection.

If, on the other hand, let's say Bush and Cheney declared martial law and decided to eliminate the states and just go with one federal government controlling the nation. The states could call forth the militia and organize them to take on the federal government and it's forces. This is really a SHTF secanario, but that is what I believed the founders were thinking. Of course, right now, an insurrection is also not likely and would be a SHTF scenario.