The Modern Sporting Rifle! Doesn't fool the NY Times

[rickyrick]

When they pass registration laws, we will comply.

If they confiscate non-sporting rifles, we will comply.

When they won't let you buy a bullet without a sporting permit, we will comply

 

[A pause for the COZ]

As I kind of stated before.
When we get into a debate, Discussion, or what ever with an anti.
They always start by framing the debate so that we are on the defensive from the 1st word.
And we fall right into it time and time again.

I would never try to answer that kind of question directly.
Those are just smoke screens. When trying to close a sale.
You would acknowledge their feelings. " I can appreciate that"
( using the word appreciate lets them know you comprehend what they are saying even if you dont agree with it. The wrong word would be "understand" Understand says that you feel the same way.)
Understand= Sympathy Appreciate = Empathy

Then I would say. " other than that is there any other things you feel should change regarding gun control?"

Bla bla bla... " I appreciate that. Any other things?

Just let them go.. The last thing they say. " Other than that?"
Nope thats it. That last thing will be the real issue.
I would suspect they just put their foot in their mouth. Usually it gets down too. I dont think any one should have guns.

But no, we keep waving around in their smoke screens.

 

[buck460XVR]

Sportsmen, many times will vote for gun control measures, was'nt meant to bash types of gun owners. I'm just trying to keep it focused on the sporting aspect.

I feel that if gun ownership is considered as sporting purposes then the 2 amendment protection goes away.

Non-sportsmen are just as likely to vote for certain gun control measures also. Not everyone's perception or definition of "infringed" is the same......one reason the RKBA is so controversial. If one reads the 2nd amendment carefully, there is no mention of protecting the right to own firearms for sporting purposes, only for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Thus no consideration at all for "Modern Sporting Rifles".......

 

[rickyrick]

I believe that I may see the day that private gun ownership goes away... Or at the least being very restrictive that most people give up their guns.

It's happened in other modern 1st world free countries, it will happen here.

Feel good politics rule the day

 

[Tom Servo]

Sportsmen have done plenty of damage to the RKBA.

And they have done plenty of good for it as well. I'm not fond of the whole dichotomy people have placed between true believers and sportsmen (or, worse, "Fudds"). It breaks us into two opposing tribes, and it's insulting to the folks who fit that definition.

Frankly, I know quite a few "I just own a gun to hunt" folks who've shown more meaningful political involvement than any ten AR-15 totin' Instagram commandos.

"Nobody needs 30 shots to kill a deer" or something like that. The majority of things in life are things "nobody needs".

Right, and the idea that an enumerated liberty is subject to a "needs" test means it existence has to be justified. Nope. Nobody expects that of our rights to speech or fair assembly. It's disingenuous for people to say that regarding the RKBA.

 

[carguychris]

I believe that I may see the day that private gun ownership goes away... Or at the least being very restrictive that most people give up their guns.

Perhaps, but I think there will be a LOT of creeping incrementalism taking place before that happens.

Also—given the ongoing divisiveness at the federal level—I don't think we'll see a UK or Aussie type apocalyptic confiscation scenario originating at the federal level anytime within the foreseeable future, although I think UBC's will probably be a done deal within the decade. A more likely scenario is the one that's already happening—increasingly severe restrictions in certain states.

 

[44 AMP]

If one reads the 2nd amendment carefully, there is no mention of protecting the right to own firearms for sporting purposes, only for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Thus no consideration at all for "Modern Sporting Rifles".......

That is correct. But read the other amendments just as carefully. There is no mention of a number of "rights".

This is covered in what is probably the most ignored amendment, the 10th.

So, just because a specific right is not enumerated in the Constitution DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST!

PERHAPS sporting arms are not covered under the 2nd amendment (although I personally think that the right to bear (any) arms for any legal purpose is covered) but even if you think not, there are other sections of the Constitution that would cover them. Pursuit of happiness, anyone??? (just for one possible example)

 

[rickyrick]

It would make me extremely to buy an Indy car and jump it over traffic on the I5 bridge....

But I couldn't do it without extensive government permits.

The Indy car is a sporting implement and I couldn't bring it into public very easily

All kinds of sports and other activities not guaranteed are inhibited by government. You can't even hunt without a book full of regulations

 

[Pond James Pond]

Reading all this still pushes me to think as I did before: people have consistently owned firearms for the same reasons: to shoot things. Either to feed oneself or defend oneself. I don't need to iterate the means by which they do either.

Without a return to the issue of the semantics or philosophy of "purpose", I believe that is what guns are primarily for and have been since their inception. Regrettable though it is, we are a species that seems to require that sort of innovation as much as any other.

I think this use must be the prime reason why gun ownership must be protected. That people should have the option of having a means of self-preservation should they choose to. Be it preservation from unsolicited aggression or from hunger (including not being reliant on others for the provision of food if they choose not to be).

I enjoy shooting sports and arguably all of my ammo is dedicated to that, but only because I don't hunt at present and don't go looking for trouble. If trouble comes looking for me, sports shooting will be the furthest thing from my mind.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Right, and the idea that an enumerated liberty is subject to a "needs" test means it existence has to be justified. Nope. Nobody expects that of our rights to speech or fair assembly. It's disingenuous for people to say that regarding the RKBA.

Thinking about this - isn't the MSR mantra trying to express a 'needs' test. I need this particular type of gun to amuse myself. Thus, don't ban it.

 

[rickyrick]

Thinking about this - isn't the MSR mantra trying to express a 'needs' test. I need this particular type of gun to amuse myself. Thus, don't ban it.

That's a bingo for me.
And once it becomes a toy, in this instance a particularly dangerous toy, it's open to heavy regulation.

I think the MSR title is a submission, and admitting you are wrong. You are seeking approval.

It's like requesting permission from your parents.

 

[buck460XVR]

I think the MSR title is a submission, and admitting you are wrong. You are seeking approval.

It's like requesting permission from your parents.

Again, for those too young to remember or memories too short, the term "modern sporting rifle" was coined by gun rag writers, firearm manufacturers and others to validate to other gun owners the use of EBRs for hunting.....not to validate the use of it to anti's. There are even some semi-auto shotguns that are considered by the NSSF as MSRs.

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While you may have a point, that the NSSF was trying the soothe the ruffled feathers of the Zumbo contingent, that wasn't the only purpose. The Guns and Ammo piece I referred to was clearly trying to make a semi a nice gun.

I hate to say it but the VPC report referenced by the Times, clearly indicates that the guns are advertised for their weapons potential and not sporting potential.

Even trying to soothe the Zumbo feathers is an attempt to make them a nice gun for a gun world subset that bought into their being too dangerous to own.

I'm repeating myself to argue that an emphasis on the MSR is a mistake for the RKBA. It is an argument that can be easily turned (the choir doesn't see that). If you make a silly argument, it's well known that later arguments (even if valid) are ignored.

Joe Scarborough (a 'conservative) said: I don't need a 30 round clip of cop killer bullets to hunt deer with my son.

Full of stupid cliches - he had a point that there is not a compelling case for 30 round mags for deer hunting. Yes, they are useful for matches (which I do). AND - they are useful for SD and defense against tyranny. So if you go MSR - why not a mag ban? They are useful for nuts to shoot up the movies?

I take the position that 'rights' may seem natural but really they have to be justified for a society to embrace them. The MSR mantra negates the reason to have such guns as compared to their risks. The benefits of having them are on the weapons side of the equation.

The other rights in the BOR are there because they became part of the social-political context of the times. Some might think they are laws of nature or the Divine but given the set of rights, changes to them, etc. - you cannot ignore the social forces enabling or disabling their instantiation.

 

[Tom Servo]

isn't the MSR mantra trying to express a 'needs' test.

Yep, by bending over backwards to call them "sporting arms," we're proactively making excuses for the exercise of a right.

Rights don't need to be justified, and we fall into a trap by doing so.

 

[rickyrick]

Funny thing when I was young, I believed a lot differently than I do now.

I thought there was no good reason to own high capacity mags.
I felt AR rifles and similar were taboo.
I would have scorned a person that showed up to a hunt with an assault weapon.
I supported background checks and all the other "common sense" gun control proposals.

I was a recreational shooter since I was a kid. Nothing serious, just leisurely target shooting. But I still believed in restrictions.
I even owned a mini14 at age 18, but only used the 5 round mag... That's all I felt was needed
Sometime in my 30s I learned exactly why the second amendment existed and it changed my view on the subject....

I really don't care why and when the term MSR was coined, what matters to me is the purpose in which I first heard it used... My first exposure to the term was to sugar coat the image of the AR15 so it seems less dangerous.

Now imagine asking your parents for permission to get a car for college. You need it to get to school and work, possibly for emergency travel back home. How far would you get if your only reasoning is "It sure is a fun to play around with it"?

 

[Stevie-Ray]

However, we are now in the 21st century, and "rational" people no longer believe that people with their personal arms can defeat a government who has tanks, jet planes and atomic weapons.

That's presupposing the military will follow orders to fire on civilians. Many high-ranking officers have stated unequivocally they will NOT do this, along with soldiers saying they will not follow the order if given. Many high-ranking officers are being let go over the last year or so, also, which is rather disconcerting. I'll stop there.

 

[Tom Servo]

Many high-ranking officers are being let go over the last year or so, also, which is rather disconcerting. I'll stop there.

If you're implying a link between the two factors, the allegation demands some serious proof.

That said, the nature and role of our military in this respect is worth addressing. The founders of this country were highly educated men. They read Locke, Blackstone, and Gibbon. They took those lessons to heart.

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had a special place for several. It was first widely published between 1775 and 1776. It was a "bestseller." Jefferson was known to walk around with a copy.

Gibbon was the first author to gather up every source we had at the time and provide a consistent analysis. Many concepts of our government, such as separation of powers and a strictly-defined set of responsibilities for the chief executive, came from the lessons in his work.

One of the factors for which he blamed the fall of Rome was the Praetorian Guard. They started as a sort of military police, then evolved to become the personal guards for emperors. Over time, they became a domestic military operating on Roman soil--something that was never supposed to happen.

Some emperors used them as enforcers and secret police. Their political influence ballooned over the years. In time, they'd make kings and kill kings who didn't meet their approval. More to the point, they weren't mere "citizens." In fact, "citizen" was what they were called when they were disgraced or relieved of duties.

Throughout history, we'd see this happen in other nations, on a smaller scale. The result was always the same: corruption and rule by a standing army. The founders didn't want that to happen here, which is why we've got provisions against it.

Furthermore, military service doesn't grant anyone a privileged role in society. Sure, we tend to feel some positive bias towards vets who run for political office or in a job interview, but that's not why they serve. Nobody goes into our military expecting to be rewarded with wealth or political influence.

As such, our soldiers are citizens. There's no insult in it, because they were never elites to begin with. It's hard to overstate how novel that is from a historical perspective.

It also explains why they're not inclined to blindly follow orders that are unconstitutional or unconscionable. There's simply no reward for betraying their oath, or the trust of their fellow citizens.

As such, would there ever really be a shooting war between the military and the citizenry like gun controllers think we're advocating? No. A Commander in Chief who gives unconstitutional orders would find himself without the support of the military.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It also explains why they're not inclined to blindly follow orders that are unconstitutional or unconscionable. There's simply no reward for betraying their oath, or the trust of their fellow citizens.

Other than the avoidance of a court martial, you mean?

I need to dig up the UCMJ on disobeying a direct order from a superior officer. When I served during the Vietnam "conflict" (it wasn't a war, the politicians kept telling us as we were busy ducking incoming), it was expressed as that we did not "have to" obey an unlawful order ... but God help you if you disobeyed and then tried to prove that an order -- any order -- was unlawful.

In recent years, I think I remember looking it up and finding that, in fact, refusing to obey an unlawful order is actually not optional, but mandatory. That puts things in a different light, but there's still the problem of being court martialed and having to show that the order you disobeyed was unlawful.

Looks like my earlier understanding was more correct. From Article 90 of the UCMJ:

Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

...

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.

(a) Lawfulness of the order.

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

It's all nicey-nice to say that soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders, but it's tough not to when the deck is stacked against the subordinates and the legal presumption is that all orders are lawful orders. Especially when "authorization may be based on ... custom of the service." That's not a very objective standard.

 

[44 AMP]

As such, would there ever really be a shooting war between the military and the citizenry like gun controllers think we're advocating? No. A Commander in Chief who gives unconstitutional orders would find himself without the support of the military.

A shooting "war" like the anti's think we fantasize about? I don't think that's likely. On the other hand, we have NUMEROUS examples of Commanders in Chief giving unconstitutional orders and the military obeying completely. Unless/until the orders are SO blatently wrong (such as machinegunning prisoners en masse) things will likely continue the way they have been.

No, soldiers do not have to obey an unlawful order, nor do civilians have to obey an unconstitutional law. BUT, UNTIL the proper court agrees with you, you are in jail, or the stockade, if you disobey.

Also note that the US (leading the other Allies) did not accept "I was only following orders" as a valid defense at Nuremburg.

 

[mehavey]

willfully disobeys a lawful command....

And there, my friend, is where the oath to the Constitution comes in -- since an order which is contrary to law is (ispo facto) unlawful.

A lawful order has the force of law to force compliance, but must be authorized, sanctioned, and not itself forbidden by law. Fail any one of those three tests and the bottom drops out.

Now I grant you that it may take a court to expose the the illegal act which the officer/NCO order was trying to require of the soldier but that's why god created the oath.

"Shoot that civilian" is an easy one.
"Don't tell congress" is a bit messier.
"Fire on your own position since the men won't advance...." well...., see Paths of Glory for some provoking thought on both sides.