Before I jump in let me say that I own hand guns and a shotgun. I also just bought an AR lower. My 10 day waiting period is up so I’ll swing by later today, or in the next few days, to pick it up. It’s a stripped lower. I have the completed upper. It’s a 5.56. Once I compete the lower it will be fully functional
I also served over 13 years in the Marine Corps, so I’m a retired veteran. I’ve shot different flavors of weapons, and my rifle and pistol qual scores are (or, were) pretty good. Since getting out of the Marines I’ve taken classes here and there, and I’m happy with my accuracy and reactions proficiencies.
Okay so some of you may call me a gun guy. That said…
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What exactly are “Arms”? Why do we need to keep our assault rifles? A rifle is one thing, but a high capacity, full auto (or even semi) - why? Grenades, RPGs, MK-19 40mm auto grenade launchers - they can be considered arms, right?
I think to achieve a reasonable balance, we gun owners can consider compromise. “Arms” today are not, I’m willing to bet, what the authors had in mind when that was written.
Well, as a first thought exercise, can you define an “assault weapon?”
nobody had those things in mind back then. I remember reading something about the Henry (lever action) repeating rifles of the 1860s, they were called “that damned Yankee rifle which loads on Sunday and shoots all week long!”
that may be apocryphal, and if it is I will accept it.
anyway, as far as what I think (italics because this is GQ) is that since the US had no “professional” army at the time, they envisioned that the people as a whole should not be barred from owning the same personal weapons as someone called up to fight a war. back then it would have meant a musket/muzzleloading rifle and maybe a muzzle-loading handgun. Today it would mean a semi-auto handgun, a select-fire rifle or carbine, and grenades of some form. In civilian forms, handguns are common, select-fire rifles/carbines are incredibly rare, and grenades are right out as “destructive devices.” I’m OK with that.
back then, people generally didn’t own cannon or other large artillery, so that counters the question “so anyone should just be able to own tanks and nuclear weapons?”
as for the “compromise” comment, what do you mean by that? because for many contentious things, one side’s “compromise” means “give a little so they won’t fight for more” while the other side’s is “give us this or we’ll take everything.”
Well, if one wants to argue necessity, picture a hypothetical U.S. where gun ownership was at roughly that same level as gun ownership in Canada - long guns are relatively easy to get, handguns are obtainable for home defense, carry-permits are highly unusual. Would the lives of U.S. citizens be less “free” as a result? If that’s not a useful metric, would their lives be better or worse by any definable measure? Was there ever a time in U.S. history where widespread private gun ownership was necessary to the survival of the country or one of its states? The Revolution? War of 1812? Any time since?
If a comparison to Canada is unacceptable, find two U.S. states with comparable populations, comparable urban/rural demographics, yet one has significantly more guns than the other. Then one might be able to offer a reasoned opinion on what level of gun ownership makes for an acceptable compromise.
From my perspective, I live in a major Canadian city - eighth largest city in North America - and the level of gun violence around here is very low. If I had the choice of whether or not to bring an American level of gun ownership here, I’d have to decline because I don’t see how it would make our situation better, and it carries the considerable risk of making it a lot worse.
I’ll give it a try, a start, but frankly I’d have to look up my state’s (CA) definition. Without looking, here is what I think should not be allowed (notice I did not say assault weapon):
no full auto. One trigger pull = 1 round fired.
if external mag, capacity ≤ 10 rds; external mags are okay
same ≤ 10 rd capacity if internally fed
I think that’s it. Does that sound reasonable to gun owners? If not, why not? If too permissive for those who want more control/restrictions, then what and why?
This is GD not GQ.
If we’re in the 18th century then generally I agree. However, weapons have advanced greatly that I think this might not be such a reasonable standard.
As a counterpoint however, if we are attacked by a foreign country or agency or group, I would want households to be sufficiently armed as to be able to provide decent resistance capability. And we’re not even getting into coordinated command and control of households. Okay this may run counter to ‘not allowed’ above, I realize. This is not an easy issue.
Also I realize that I do not share the… fear?, or need? that some of my friends hold to sufficiently arm ourselves against our own government, should tyranny prevail there. I do not think that would affect me, but hey, it might. I’m not a Branch Davidian, but in a few years there may be sufficient tyranny that we would need to be sufficiently armed.
Right now our military is strong and decently funded. That could change over time, and we could become vulnerable to foreign attack. I do think our armed households and trained gun owners are a deterrent for that.
Generally, agree. But are grenades allowed?
This is also a tough one. I think the NRA is so very strong that the ‘give up nothing’ approach to compromise does not help when we have many mass shootings. I think some things have to change to reduce the number of mass shootings. What? More stringent background checks? Perhaps minimal background checks for buying a revolver holding fewer than 8 rounds, and then increasingly stringent requirements for semi pistols, and so on up some kind of graduated scale. Perhaps something like that.
The NRA doesn’t speak for me, and yet on the other hand I probably benefit from some of their works.
This is not an easy topic but we need to come together, talk, and all sides give a little in order to reduce the mass killings.
Do you? Seems to me that mass shootings in the U.S. have become sufficiently commonplace that they’re background noise at this point. If Sandy Hook couldn’t force some movement on the issue, I’m not sure anything can. Maybe it really will need a sustained insurrection which, once defeated, will get America reconsidering the whole gun thing.
You are rehashing some of the points of the expired “assault weapon” ban. To address the mag issue first, the ban did exactly what you suggest, no new magazines over 10 rounds could be made or imported. But there were millions of 20 and 30 round mags already made. So it just raised the price of the ones already manufactured.
Would you ban the existing ones? Now you are talking confiscation. But they will only take the magazines… that’s the top of the slope right there. And how would you ever locate them? Magazines have never required paperwork. Well, maybe they could be allowed to search for them. The slope just steepened a lot.
At any rate, all that did was make a shooter swap mags more often. Hell, you say, maybe only 5 rounds is better!
As for the single trigger pull, there are many clever, legal ways around that. Rotating cranks that slip over the trigger, spring loaded, “bounce” triggers, heck there are entire stocks that allow the action to recoil within the stock, firing every time it bumps your finger. I have shot those, it is pretty much indistinguishable from real full auto fire. But I don’t think any killer has ever used any of them. Most deranged killers seem bent on targeting individuals, not mowing down an advancing wave of troops.
Here is the Slide Fire stock, perfectly legal:
And you can fire full auto using nothing but the proper technique, it is called "bump firing". Here, I'll look it up for you. Skip to 1:45
There's your AR-15, woo hoo!
Dennis
Have you read Heller? Real question. It is the authoritative guide on the current interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Your comments thus far don’t lead me to believe that you’ve read it. We’ve had extensive discussion on the board about what the definition of Arms is. One of the more recent ones is here.
As a hint - “need” doesn’t enter into the equation.
No I haven’t read Heller. Not yet. Thanks for the link, discussing about arms.
As for “need”, it does enter into the equation because my RKBA right starts and ends with arms. Do I need grenades? Are grenades arms? That might be in that thread you provided.
we’re already there. per the 1986 “Firearm Owners Protection Act” no civilian can buy or own a firearm capable of firing more than 1 round per trigger pull if it was made after 1986. So that’s capped the quantity availabe which makes them incredibly expensive, you have to pay a transfer tax and get approval for the transfer from the ATF.
why is 10 always the magic number? What does limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds do? Seung-Hui Cho just took a bunch of 10-round magazines with him.
No. Why? because we already basically have the first one (and it’s a bit troubling to me when people ask for public policy which is already in effect,) and nobody has shown that a 10-round limit is anything but arbitrary. Then when pressed the usual fallback is “well we have to do something!”
my mistake.
no, because they’re based on high explosives and are considered “destructive devices” by the ATF.
well, with the caveat that “The devil is in the details,” I would be agreeable to some form of “universal background check” for private transfers. Right now, I can sell a long gun (rifle/shotgun) to somebody cash-in-hand. I would be OK with a law that says I would have to run the sale at least through an FFL holder who would run the usual NICS background check for a nominal “transfer” fee. But I could support that if (and only if) it would indemnify me against liability if the buyer later does something harmful with it. of course, there would be exceptions if it can be proven that a “reasonable person” would have known the buyer had ill intentions.
To get a firearms certificate in the UK, the police have to be satisfied that the gun you want is right for the purpose for which you want it (assuming the purpose you have in mind is one that is considered appropriate), and the guidelines to the police go into a lot of detailed definition, on precisely that sort of point. It doesn’t stop people hunting with rifles, or killing vermin with shotguns.
I think we can consider compromises where there is common ground. Unfortunately for the leading gun control proponents there is actually no common ground. The idea that the authors didn’t have modern arms in mind is largely irrelevant, just as not contemplating the internet is not relevant to 1st amendment jurisprudence.
I really recommend you read Heller. It has extensive discussion about arms, and what each clause of the 2nd is interpreted to mean.
The NRA doesn’t speak for me either - they are too moderate for my tastes. I do probably benefit from some of their work as well. I do like the idea of donating through my company matching program and having my company make a donation to the NRA though.
The ideas that you’ve mentioned about # of rounds, etc. are already in place in CA. San Bernardino was also fairly recent. In any event, mass killings are infrequent enough that I think it’s unwise to craft public policy around them. The vast majority of gun homicides are not mass killings. You also seem to be interchanging the terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle”. These are not the same thing. The CA legislature has defined what an assault weapon is, and it does not completely overlap with an assault rifle. Because gun laws are so complex it is important to use the correct terminology - the difference between a flash suppressor and a muzzle break could be the difference between an ordinary day and a felony.
No, need does not enter the equation because need is not a criteria for exercising fundamental enumerated constitutional rights. Whether or not you need grenades is irrelevant. Whether grenades are arms is entirely relevant.
I’ve always found it curious that edged weapons (knives, daggers, swords, axes, spears, pikes, etc.)
don’t ever seem to get in the discussion mix. Clearly they have been considered arms for many more centuries than firearms.
There are many state and local regulations on carrying edged weapons but I don’t recall any major challenges to the Supreme court.
“Arms” are weapons. Weapons needed for self-defense. I may be required to defend myself from multiple assailants/zombies. If you can’t tell me how many assailants I may be facing in the future, why should I compromise on magazine capacity?
The Girardoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815 and held 20 rounds.
The Founding Fathers should have/would have been aware that arms could hold as many as 20 rounds by the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Do you think 20 sounds like a number that the gun-banners would be willing to consider or accept?
First off, in any discussion linked to the Constitution and what it means, should include a big caveat/warning to everyone, that the people who wrote our Constitution (contrary to popular myth) were NOT sent from On High, with greater than normal wisdom and clarity of mind and purpose.
We aren’t talking about any magical logical authority here.
The Second Amendment is one of many parts of the Constitution that reveal just how badly our vaunted forefathers could stumble, when it came to saying what the heck they meant to say.
The Heller decision is terrible. It tries to make decisions about what words meant to the Framers by assuming that they wrote everything with a purposeful and careful intent of using only that language which the majority of common people understood, and that’s balderdash. They even contradict themselves mid statement, saying in one place that NON-military weapons are what "arms " refers to, and elsewhere go on to refer to military weapons as arms. Their support for the claim that “everyone KNEW back then that Arms meant defensive and hunting weapons” is non-existent.
I’m not going to go into detail on the many arguments and counter arguments about what the 2nd should or shouldn’t be interpreted to say, other than to say in general, that the vast majority of the current most popular arguments on BOTH sides of the issue, are insane, self-delusional crap, that completely ignore the real world, in favor of self-adoring fanatical rah-rah blather.
Varmint rifle … small caliber, medium load, low trajectory … typically hitting one varmint scares up another … so we want another round in the chamber = semi-automatic … high capacity clips to take out a whole bunch at once …
The AR-15 fits the need perfect … very effective from squirrels to coyotes and does a good enough job for anything smaller than a bear … flip the selector to “auto” and you can give yourself a good head start outrunning the bear …
The founders’ real intention was that everyone could be drafted into the militia by the government whenever necessary, so it would be better if they could provide their own weapons for militia service.
