As a gun owner I’m trying to understand the disconnect between so called dangerous firearms, and those guns that are not so dangerous.
It also seems that those that are for more gun control, don’t know a thing about them.
It’s kind of tough, and I understand that. Firearms are difficult to classify. A .45acp is not the same as a .45 colt. But a .223 is the same as a 5.56.
A 12 gage is bigger than a 20 gage. My .356 rifle is about 3 times more powerful than my .357 revolver. A .357 also shoots .38’s. The .38 is about as powerful as a .9mm.
A 30-06, is much more powerful than a 30-30.
A 7mm rifle is more powerful than a 9mm pistol.
A semi-automatic is not a ‘machine gun’.
And on, and on……
I never considered myself ‘pro’ gun until I started reading some of the posts on the SDMB. The care that I do put towards the firearms that I own is the maintenance that they require to keep them safe and serviceable. I shoot a few times a year. I enjoy it. I have been shooting since I was nine years old.
1590, “system of military discipline,” from L. militia “military service, warfare,” from miles “soldier” (see military). Sense of “citizen army” (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, “the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not” (1777).
Now crack a fucking dictionary and look up the word “militia.”
My dictionary (Merriam-Webster online) says this:
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Function: noun
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Now see what the Ferederal Government has to say about the militia.
Is there still any doubt in your mind that the classic interpretation of “the militia” is “the people,” which have the right to keep and bear arms?
Or do you continuously ignore anything and everything that might disabuse you of wrongly held notions, as well as showing you up to be a gillible fool that’s swallowed a well-crafted lie, hook, line, and sinker?
It happened in Chicago, Illinois, California (where suddenly the rifles used by Biathlon competitors were illegal, and in Washington, DC.
You don’t even have to look outside the US, or even outside this century, to find those examples.
I wish they’d update it to include all able-bodied women. If the shit ever really hit the fan (like the Rodney King riots or some horrid natural disaster that leads to lawlessness and violence), I’m thinking you’d accept my offer to cover your back.
I’ve read it. Would the “organized militia” in our favorite amendment perhaps be referring to Section 311, (b), (1)“the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia”, and exclude the “unorganized militia” of Section 311, (b), (2)"the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. "?
Now, since you have purportedly read the Second Amendment, can you show me where the words “organized militia” appear? Hint: they don’t. The words you are looking for are “well regulated”, which arguably have nothing to do with the concept of “organized militia” in any case.
The words “well regulated” in the context of the times just meant “well and properly armed to function as a militia,” to be in proper working order.
*The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
— The Federalist Papers, No. 29. *
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
*Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
— Saturday, December 13, 1777. * I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
— George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
No shit. That’s what makes it a cottage industry. You probably don’t happen to notice all the pot being grown in your neighborhood, either.
If you admit the crimes are sensational and rare, how can you slam the media for covering them?
You obviously did not read the .pdf files I linked to. I’M not the one who characterized it as easy; in the case of the Glock pistol modification, the BATF’s own page says the modification to full auto can be done in 60 seconds with no tools. Does it get easier than that?
Again, yes and no. It’s not true automatic weapons aren’t disproportionately more powerful, but the difficulty in obtaining them does appear to make them uneconomical for most criminals to use. The difference between one of these weapons and a non-automatic weapon is the difference between being shot once and being shot three times. A WWII-era Browning Automatic Rifle in .30-06 could punch 20 thumb-sized holes right through both sides of a police car, as well as anyone inside or behind it, in 3 seconds. So could an M60 machine gun in 7.62 NATO caliber, or ANY automatic weapon in these calibers. The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 was passed specifically to address organized gangs armed with automatic weapons who were wreaking havoc. Think of it this way: If you were going into a gunfight with someone armed like that, would you want your only weapon to be a 9mm handgun?
I am confused. Your cites appear to make the opposite point. They contrast the ordinary citizen from a “well regulated militia” which has training.
Also, since a Federal definition of militia appears to exist can we restrict possesion of guns to men between 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard?
Possibly. I think you would run into sex and age discrimination suits readily enough if you tried, though.
If we examine the initial wording of the amendment as passed by the House of Representatives, August 24, 1789:
ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
If we look at other contemporary documents, we can see where the Founding Fathers were coming from. From the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Can you give an example in which I ignored a point that was made and just talked over it?
Can you give an example of a disingenuous argument I’ve made here?
You paint me with this brush, but there’s all this text here, all these things I’ve said - why not make an actual case instead of just insult me?
Not at all. I haven’t fully flushed out why I believe certain arguments to be flawed, because I have in previous threads. We’ve had pages-long threads that focus on these issues specifically, and I didn’t want to refight them at length, so I only stated what I believed to be the most reasonable conclusion from them.
I’ll find those threads later and post links.
Not at all. Above all, I form my opinions through reason. I was not pro-gun when I got into the issue, and I have the rational arguments are all that keep me that way. If someone were able to present a compelling case that I was wrong, I’d be willing to listen and re-evaluate my world views. You make many assumptions about me that are dead wrong.
As far as gun registry/confiscation cites, I’ll find them later too.
“Militia” does not refer to a federally run organized military force - in fact, when you look at the reasons for having a militia, it’s precisely the opposite. The second amendment, written in the 1790s does not refer to the national guard, formed in the 1910s (give or take a decade, I forget).
The idea makes little sense because the militia was meant to be a fighting force made up of the general populace, rather than a centralized, organized, government-controlled army or military force which could be used to oppress.
So, to try to say that the National Guard, which is technically a division of the US federal armed forces, fills that role is absurd. The roles are very much opposed.
It takes a whole lot of willfull ignorance to believe that “the right of the people” in the other amendments means, well, the right of the people, and “the right of the people” in the second amendment means the right of a branch of the federal military.
Again, I’ll find some threads covering this debate in more detail.
Technically a little wrong on both counts
The ACP in .45 ACP stands for “automatic colt pistol” - generally, “colt .45” and “.45 acp” and just “.45” mean the same thing.
The 5.56 and .223 are practically identical and interchangable but technically not. The 5.56x45 follows a military specification for the cartridge, length, headspace, pressure, etc. and the .223 follows a commercial one. In practice, though, they’re pretty much interchangable.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’ve read it. Would the “organized militia” in our favorite amendment QUOTE]
The second amendment makes no mention of an organized militia, in the sense that it’s run by and controlled by government. If you simply read the works of the people who write and signed it into law, it was clear that militia was meant to remove the need and risks associated with an organized military force controlled by government.
You’re probably getting hung up on the “well-regulated” part, which is an unfortunate choice of wording. The way that it was used has since fallen out of favor over the centuries.
In 18th century parlance, you could, for example, regulate a clock. Which meant that you had it in good working order. Not that it was subject to regulations. It makes little sense to create an unorganized militia so that it wouldn’t be subject to government control, and then give the government the ability to control it (and disarm it).
As Cecil says here: “But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.”
Well, you insist that one exists, despite no evidence, and the likely fact that we’d hear about it if such a thing did.
Are you kidding? You don’t have to be a gun advocate to hate the way the media portrays sensationalist things anyway. There are lots of things that are rare and sensational, and not necesarily all of them are negative and violent, which the media will pass up because it doesn’t fit their agenda and/or they’re only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The way the media latches on to small, but isolated and tragic stories, and then covers them endlessly is disgusting. We could start a thread that covers the many ways in which modern media is generally disgusting.
Okay, I’ll read them in a bit.
A semi-automatic hunting rifle in the same caliber might only put 10 or 15, but they’d be more well aimed and controlled.
If I had an assault rifle, for most situations, I would never make use of the fully automatic mode of fire, because it has limited uses and is inefficient and generally worse for most purposes. Soldiers are trained to, in most situations, only use the semi-automatic mode of fire, because aimed, controlled fire is more effective for most situations.
If I had to fight a criminal with an assault rifle (what a silly scenario), I’d prefer him to use fully automatic rather than semi-automatic fire because he’s likely to be minimally trained and the danger he’d pose to me would actually be less that way.
No, I’d probably want my weapon to be a semi-automatic rifle, which, even if I had an automatic fire capability, and I’m more well trained than the average person in using that, I’d still keep it on semi-auto.
Could anyone with military infantry experience chime in and explain that fully automatic fire out of a rifle isn’t the preferred method of use, but only for specific situations?
Can you give an example in which I ignored a point that was made and just talked over it?
Can you give an example of a disingenuous argument I’ve made here?
You paint me with this brush, but there’s all this text here, all these things I’ve said - why not make an actual case instead of just insult me?
Not at all. I haven’t fully flushed out why I believe certain arguments to be flawed, because I have in previous threads. We’ve had pages-long threads that focus on these issues specifically, and I didn’t want to refight them at length, so I only stated what I believed to be the most reasonable conclusion from them.
I’ll find those threads later and post links.
Not at all. Above all, I form my opinions through reason. I was not pro-gun when I got into the issue, and I have the rational arguments are all that keep me that way. If someone were able to present a compelling case that I was wrong, I’d be willing to listen and re-evaluate my world views. You make many assumptions about me that are dead wrong.
As far as gun registry/confiscation cites, I’ll find them later too.
“Militia” does not refer to a federally run organized military force - in fact, when you look at the reasons for having a militia, it’s precisely the opposite. The second amendment, written in the 1790s does not refer to the national guard, formed in the 1910s (give or take a decade, I forget).
The idea makes little sense because the militia was meant to be a fighting force made up of the general populace, rather than a centralized, organized, government-controlled army or military force which could be used to oppress.
So, to try to say that the National Guard, which is technically a division of the US federal armed forces, fills that role is absurd. The roles are very much opposed.
It takes a whole lot of willfull ignorance to believe that “the right of the people” in the other amendments means, well, the right of the people, and “the right of the people” in the second amendment means the right of a branch of the federal military.
Again, I’ll find some threads covering this debate in more detail.
Technically a little wrong on both counts
The ACP in .45 ACP stands for “automatic colt pistol” - generally, “colt .45” and “.45 acp” and just “.45” mean the same thing.
The 5.56 and .223 are practically identical and interchangable but technically not. The 5.56x45 follows a military specification for the cartridge, length, headspace, pressure, etc. and the .223 follows a commercial one. In practice, though, they’re pretty much interchangable.
The second amendment makes no mention of an organized militia, in the sense that it’s run by and controlled by government. If you simply read the works of the people who write and signed it into law, it was clear that militia was meant to remove the need and risks associated with an organized military force controlled by government.
You’re probably getting hung up on the “well-regulated” part, which is an unfortunate choice of wording. The way that it was used has since fallen out of favor over the centuries.
In 18th century parlance, you could, for example, regulate a clock. Which meant that you had it in good working order. Not that it was subject to regulations. It makes little sense to create an unorganized militia so that it wouldn’t be subject to government control, and then give the government the ability to control it (and disarm it).
As Cecil says here: “But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.”
Well, you insist that one exists, despite no evidence, and the likely fact that we’d hear about it if such a thing did.
Are you kidding? You don’t have to be a gun advocate to hate the way the media portrays sensationalist things anyway. There are lots of things that are rare and sensational, and not necesarily all of them are negative and violent, which the media will pass up because it doesn’t fit their agenda and/or they’re only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The way the media latches on to small, but isolated and tragic stories, and then covers them endlessly is disgusting. We could start a thread that covers the many ways in which modern media is generally disgusting.
Okay, I’ll read them in a bit.
A semi-automatic hunting rifle in the same caliber might only put 10 or 15, but they’d be more well aimed and controlled.
If I had an assault rifle, for most situations, I would never make use of the fully automatic mode of fire, because it has limited uses and is inefficient and generally worse for most purposes. Soldiers are trained to, in most situations, only use the semi-automatic mode of fire, because aimed, controlled fire is more effective for most situations.
If I had to fight a criminal with an assault rifle (what a silly scenario), I’d prefer him to use fully automatic rather than semi-automatic fire because he’s likely to be minimally trained and the danger he’d pose to me would actually be less that way.
No, I’d probably want my weapon to be a semi-automatic rifle, which, even if I had an automatic fire capability, and I’m more well trained than the average person in using that, I’d still keep it on semi-auto.
Could anyone with military infantry experience chime in and explain that fully automatic fire out of a rifle isn’t the preferred method of use, but only for specific situations?
Can you give an example in which I ignored a point that was made and just talked over it?
Can you give an example of a disingenuous argument I’ve made here?
You paint me with this brush, but there’s all this text here, all these things I’ve said - why not make an actual case instead of just insult me?
Not at all. I haven’t fully flushed out why I believe certain arguments to be flawed, because I have in previous threads. We’ve had pages-long threads that focus on these issues specifically, and I didn’t want to refight them at length, so I only stated what I believed to be the most reasonable conclusion from them.
I’ll find those threads later and post links.
Not at all. Above all, I form my opinions through reason. I was not pro-gun when I got into the issue, and I have the rational arguments are all that keep me that way. If someone were able to present a compelling case that I was wrong, I’d be willing to listen and re-evaluate my world views. You make many assumptions about me that are dead wrong.
As far as gun registry/confiscation cites, I’ll find them later too.
“Militia” does not refer to a federally run organized military force - in fact, when you look at the reasons for having a militia, it’s precisely the opposite. The second amendment, written in the 1790s does not refer to the national guard, formed in the 1920s (give or take a decade, I forget).
The idea makes little sense because the militia was meant to be a fighting force made up of the general populace, rather than a centralized, organized, government-controlled army or military force which could be used to oppress.
So, to try to say that the National Guard, which is technically a division of the US federal armed forces, fills that role is absurd. The roles are very much opposed.
It takes a whole lot of willfull ignorance to believe that “the right of the people” in the other amendments means, well, the right of the people, and “the right of the people” in the second amendment means the right of a branch of the federal military.
Again, I’ll find some threads covering this debate in more detail.
Technically a little wrong on both counts
The ACP in .45 ACP stands for “automatic colt pistol” - generally, “colt .45” and “.45 acp” and just “.45” mean the same thing.
The 5.56 and .223 are practically identical and interchangable but technically not. The 5.56x45 follows a military specification for the cartridge, length, headspace, pressure, etc. and the .223 follows a commercial one. In practice, though, they’re pretty much interchangable.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’ve read it. Would the “organized militia” in our favorite amendment QUOTE]
The second amendment makes no mention of an organized militia, in the sense that it’s run by and controlled by government. If you simply read the works of the people who write and signed it into law, it was clear that militia was meant to remove the need and risks associated with an organized military force controlled by government.
You’re probably getting hung up on the “well-regulated” part, which is an unfortunate choice of wording. The way that it was used has since fallen out of favor over the centuries.
In 18th century parlance, you could, for example, regulate a clock. Which meant that you had it in good working order. Not that it was subject to regulations. It makes little sense to create an unorganized militia so that it wouldn’t be subject to government control, and then give the government the ability to control it (and disarm it).
As Cecil says here: “But it’s silly to think the framers would guarantee a right in one half of the Second Amendment only to allow the government to unguarantee it in the other half.”
Well, you insist that one exists, despite no evidence, and the likely fact that we’d hear about it if such a thing did.
Are you kidding? You don’t have to be a gun advocate to hate the way the media portrays sensationalist things anyway. There are lots of things that are rare and sensational, and not necesarily all of them are negative and violent, which the media will pass up because it doesn’t fit their agenda and/or they’re only interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. The way the media latches on to small, but isolated and tragic stories, and then covers them endlessly is disgusting. We could start a thread that covers the many ways in which modern media is generally disgusting.
Okay, I’ll read them in a bit.
A semi-automatic hunting rifle in the same caliber might only put 10 or 15, but they’d be more well aimed and controlled.
If I had an assault rifle, for most situations, I would never make use of the fully automatic mode of fire, because it has limited uses and is inefficient and generally worse for most purposes. Soldiers are trained to, in most situations, only use the semi-automatic mode of fire, because aimed, controlled fire is more effective for most situations.
If I had to fight a criminal with an assault rifle (what a silly scenario), I’d prefer him to use fully automatic rather than semi-automatic fire because he’s likely to be minimally trained and the danger he’d pose to me would actually be less that way.
No, I’d probably want my weapon to be a semi-automatic rifle, which, even if I had an automatic fire capability, and I’m more well trained than the average person in using that, I’d still keep it on semi-auto.
Could anyone with military infantry experience chime in and explain that fully automatic fire out of a rifle isn’t the preferred method of use, but only for specific situations?
you screwed up your closing of your Czarcasm quote. Mods can delete this post when they fix SenorBeef’s post if they want. I guess you could just leave it as is instead, lol.
So your argument is that because there are lots of types of guns with confusing nomenclature, that they therefore shouldn’t be regulated? That makes sense. :rolleyes:
