Tennesse Gentleman said:
BillCA said:
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.
Tennesse Gentleman said:
BillCA said:
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.
Tennesse Gentleman said:
"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.