Quote:
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.
Ah but how is anyone to know that Joe has done anything wrong until he uses his illegal machinegun? Does the 4th Amendment no longer apply?
Quote:
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.
Yes, civilians do have control exercised over them through either fear or respect to the law. Either their own morals or fear of legal concequences prevents most people from using firearms irresponsibly. Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and Front Sight all seem to stay in business without mandatory training laws. Could it be that the same people who are responsible enough to seek training with their current firearms would also be responsible enough to do so with a machinegun? Besides, those who currently own registered machineguns have little control exercised over their use of such weapons. There is no mandatory training for them nor are they restricted from their use to the degree that soldiers are yet there seem to be very few problems.
Quote:
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.
Well, I certainly hope you're right. However, I think you'll feel quite foolish if you're not and I personally don't like being legally prevented from preparing for any eventuality no matter how improbable.
Quote:
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.
Suppose you want to keep the angry mob's heads down while your family escapes, that'd be suppressive fire.
Quote:
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.
Then why did you bring him up?
Quote:
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.
Speaking of the Brady Campaign, you've been using quite a bit of their logic yourself: curren laws don't address the problem until after the fact so we need to take
insert weapon here away so that they can't do it to begin with. Besides, I'm pretty certain the Brady Bunch doesn't need us to give them ammo as they seem quite capable of fabricating it themselves:barf:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
But you see there is no distinction made between the organized and unorganized militia made in either
Miller or
Heller. The decision of the court between the two cases is that private citizens need not belong to the militia (organized or unorganized) in order to have the right to own weapons suitable for the militia (again organized or unorganized). If you don't like the way that it comes out, perhaps you should petition to have the Milita Act repealed.
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.
The only reason the militia is part of the issue is because the Supreme Court stated in
Miller that weapons must be suitable for the militia (no distinction between organized and unorganized made), so it is necessary to determine exactly who the militia is and what weapons they use in order to determine what weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Since the National Guard is defined as the organized militia by the Militia Act of 1903, weapons suitable for and in common use by the National Guard are therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment. Whether an individual actually belongs to the National Guard is irrelevant according to
Heller so long as his weapons are suitable for use by the National Guard. What the Justices who ruled on
Miller did, inadvertently I believe, was to create a venue for us to argue that military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment through trying to create their own loophole to uphold the NFA.
This whole idea of people in LA or New Orleans defending themselves with M2 .50 cal machinguns is far fetched, preposterious and disingenious.
What about the idea of people defending themselves with a Thompson or MP-5? Besides, the M2 would be perfect for area denial.
Quote:
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.
We have many other potentially dangerous freedoms that are denied in the military and our society doesn't break down. Certainly you won't find the scathing criticisms of the President in
Stars and Stripes that you would in
The Los Angeles Times. It could certainly be argued that the power of the press is far more dangerous to society at large than any firearm. What it boils down to is that you've not convinced us that the military chain of command is necessary for civilian ownership of full-auto (it doesn't even exist under the NFA as it stands now).
