Where Is The Line In The Right To Bear Arms?
I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but I just read a section discussing elite versus democratic rule in Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior, a very interesting book by evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, and it raised the above question in my head.
Miller writes:
...Few would advocate that your local Target store should be allowed to sell FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
Recently, I've been seeing op-eds, blog items, tweets, and more with people calling for a ban on Glocks and other weapons.
So, I'll ask you...where do we draw the line, and how, and why?
One take on this from Michael Cannon at Cato.
There are really two different points here. I can only assume that the Founding Fathers took the right to self-defense as a given because of its traditional place in common law, and because the right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Granting this assumption, the Second Amendment isn't there to allow one the concealed carry of a Glock.
My understanding of the Second Amendment is that it's there for the defense of one's other rights, like those protected in the first and fourth amendments. For that, a handgun just won't do. To raise a militia to keep one's government in check, you really need a military grade weapon and all your neighbors have to have one, too. There's no cannon restriction in the right to bear arms, as if muskets were the limit. So, you could drag your cannon down to city hall and threaten to blow up the mayor---but if thirty of your neighbors show up with muskets, you probably won't have time to reload.
But, if the whole point of the Second Amendment is for the people to have enough firepower to ensure that they not governed without their consent, this all became moot a long time ago. The sheer scale of technological innovation and the enormous expense of it's most advance weapons means that the federal government has long had the power to kill everyone on Earth, much less put down a rebellion by voters. Now, obviously, even Bill Gates can't be allowed to build a doomsday device, despite the fact that he could afford it.
So, Amy, where do I draw the line? I should be able keep an assault rifle, but I could count on one hand the number of people I'd trust to have one, too. But that's not a very good answer, is it?
Tyler at January 17, 2011 12:22 AM
Given the history, the second amendment would seem to permit any
arms designed for point effect as opposed to area effect. This
would mean that missiles, grenades, and bombs would be restricted,
but something that shoots bullets or mini-missiles (like the Gyrojet
pistol) would be covered.
I've seen the argument that any arm more useful than a flintlock
isn't covered by the second amendment because the drafters didn't
envision any better technology. That's just too silly. By the same
logic, the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press
wouldn't cover TV, radio, or the internet.
Ron at January 17, 2011 12:28 AM
The self-defense argument is a good one, but as Tyler says, it isn't really the point. The second amendment is there to ensure that - should it become necessary - citizens can overthrow their government. The founders thought that periodic revolutions would be necessary, and they wanted to make sure they were possible. After all, preventing people from being governed without their consent was what the American revolution was all about.
It took less than one hundred years for this noble goals to be lost. The Southern States were forcefully prevented from seceding, even though the founders would have said that they had every right to do so. So 150 years ago the government had already become too powerful.
a_random_guy at January 17, 2011 4:02 AM
Tyler - and Michael Cannon - are wrong, though for two different reasons.
As can be seen in Iraq and a hundred other places, the personal firearm is totally effective against advanced military forces, for the simple reason that pilots and tank drivers have to get out sometime.
And self-defense never entered into the Second Amendment. The ability to force government to do the will of the people was the entire purpose.
Haven't you noticed that the Founders didn't talk their way to independence?
Have you even read this?
Let this be noted: government power has already shown you that you will consent to anything - anything - rather than be inconvenienced. The Lemuel Penn case established travel as a human right, yet you will allow yourself to be presumed guilty so you can ride on an airplane. You defend the 1st Amendment with flying spittle, as if all you have to do is talk and things will be all right, while you accept the ridiculous notion that because a criminal does something, you must be prevented from doing something different.
And you, the public, apparently do not think about anything. No, waiting periods don't cut crime. There is no functional difference between a gun owner and a gun holder, but you talk about "ownership" as if a purchase is the only way you can possibly possess a gun. The penalty for an unlicensed gun holder carrying a pistol in a forbidden public place is lower than that for a licensed concealed-carry holder. You established "forbidden places" - the perfect shooting environment for the thug, because she knows that she will be the only one there with a gun.
Robert Heinlein saw the '50s and '60s as "the crazy years", to which I say, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
If the American was serious about liberty and rights, they would recognize the responsibilities attending those rights. The Swiss model of citizenship apparently issues the national service rifle to citizens, who must remain qualified.
If you can be ordered to carry an M-16 to kill the "right people", you should damned well be able to have it at the house. So my solution is that weapions up to and including the American service rifle should be just fine. Not "permitted" - disregarded. Assumed to be on the premises.
Spare me the prediction of doom, because the carry laws issuing permits on demand actually dropped crime rates. When the mythology of the gun as a tool without costs is dispelled, ridiculous assertions evaporate.
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 5:52 AM
"The sheer scale of technological innovation and the enormous expense of it's most advance weapons means that the federal government has long had the power to kill everyone on Earth, much less put down a rebellion by voters."
A patently absurd notion that should be shot down whenever it is profferd. The last 150 years of human history show how silly this idea is. Of course the US Federal government could nuke people or use certain chemical and biological weapons. Fuel air bombs offer few downsides too. Pilots still have to stop to refuel, people have to eat, sleep etc.. Its a lot like MAD theory. Sure you could nuke people or bomb the hell out of a town/state but who would be left to be governed and might it spark a greater revolution/insurrection? This country was founded by a bunch of guerrilas fighting against the greatest military of the day. Sure things went slower but you need fuel and food to support an army. There are far more gun owners in the USA than federal agents.
Also, what Radwaste said.
Sio at January 17, 2011 6:16 AM
Well, now.
My usual answer to such questions has been that all personal arms should be permitted; defined twofold as "can be used by one person; i.e., not crew-served" and "not of mass destruction, i.e., you can have grenades, but not daisy-cutters, MOABs, or nukes".
Which should cover the requirements of sport, self-defense, and even revolution quite nicely, while still placing constraints on major acts of terrorism or people equipping private armies in their basements.
My lovely wife, contrariwise, is of the opinion that since a good portion of the purpose of the Second Amendment is overthrowing the government, when necessary, that the citizens should be allowed to own any weapon that the government's allowed to own, adding that this would also give the "well-regulated militia" plenty of teeth for the day when the Canadians come marching across the border, or some more realistic invasion scenario eventuates...
I confess, I trend increasingly towards that view myself, especially as experience and cynicism drive me ever closer to raw anarchocapitalism. After all, if I feel that the average upstanding citizen can be trusted to not abuse a Colt .45, it's not a particularly long reach to trust them with bigger weapons as well.
Alistair Young at January 17, 2011 6:58 AM
Recently, I've been seeing op-eds, blog items, tweets, and more with people calling for a ban on Glocks and other weapons.
Gun control is one of the few public issues where the proponents actually pride themselves on their ignorance of the facts involved. They are apparently too pure to soil themselves with an expertise, or even a rudimentary familiarity, with firearms. So the public is constantly subject to all sorts of ridiculous spurious claims and proposals offered by these advocates.
Glocks are entirely conventional pistols. There's nothing exotic or unusually lethal about them. Most major PD's have issued Glocks at one time or another, because they're reliable, reasonably accurate and easy to maintain. They are the Toyota Corollas of the pistol market. The fact that Loughner used a Glock is no more significant than the brand of shoes he was wearing. Anyone claiming otherwise is indicating that they are either too uninformed, or dishonest, to participate in a debate concerning gun control.
Similarly the 9mm cartridge he'd used is unexceptional. The reason that 9mm isn't typically used for hunting is because it's not particularly lethal - not because it's a custom designed man-killer. The biggest complaint against 9mm is that it's insufficiently lethal. It's also extremely common. Most service weapons are in 9mm, and it's a popular round for everything from target shooting to home defense. 9mm has basically taken over the role that 38 special used to serve back in the day. So again, claims regarding special properties of the 9mm are evidence of ignorance, or duplicity.
gunsamungus at January 17, 2011 7:18 AM
The Swiss model is about right. The supreme law of the US allows more. Any weapon is permitted that would be reasonably used by a member of the militia for "the security of a free State."
I'm also advocate conditioning the franchise on participation in the militia. If a person cannot demonstrate reasonable competence int defense-at-arms of a free State, then that person would not get to vote. Although, each state would be free to decide.
Jeff at January 17, 2011 7:22 AM
I think some people are misguided while defense from the government is a clear reason for the second ammendment self defense from Human predation IS protected by the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Personally the line was crossed when they banned civilian ownership of machine guns. increased permit requirements That's fine.
But a law should never of passed banning the people they're right to posses fully auto matic weapons.
Killing tank crews is easy and two many idiots expect A revolution to be conventional wait till the tank crew leaves the tank and goes drinking Easy pickings even with a .22LR.
Greg at January 17, 2011 7:31 AM
fully automatic weapons aren't banned for possession, but they do require additional clearances and a tax stamp. There are actually a good number of 'machine guns' in private hands. You'll notice though that there is almost no crime committed with automatic weapons in the US.
heater at January 17, 2011 7:41 AM
The term "arms" in the second amendment was, at the time, considered different from "cannon."
Here's a court opinion re same from 1980: State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
Walter Moore at January 17, 2011 7:45 AM
There's still a law on the books in my town that says every man who attends Sunday church services MUST be armed. This goes back to the late 1600s, though (Milford was founded in 1639), and was probably put there to encourage protection of families and discourage native Americans from disrupting the services. Still, I think every American has a right to keep and bear arms, as stated in the Second Amendment. Who was it who said "An armed society is a polite society"? If you know everyone you encounter is armed, you're going to think twice before you try and rob someone, aren't you? I think too many people have become too complacent and lax about their own security because the government has encouraged that attitude by implementing "protection" via police departments, etc. The police can't do anything to protect you. They don't get called until AFTER something happens to you. And even then, sometimes (most of the time) there's nothing they can do but file a report and go after whoever. When it comes to firearms and whether or not people should have the right to carry, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Flynne at January 17, 2011 7:46 AM
The 2nd amendment is obsolete, because the government has overwhelming power. This has been proven by the quick and easy victories, by the US military, in countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Old Fartski at January 17, 2011 7:48 AM
I'd be plenty pleased if gun ownership and use were more like car ownership. Basically, if it were pretty much unrestricted besides the basics...you can't operate it without a license, which is available to adults (and possibly conditional learning licenses to minors) who pass an operating and safety test (and Loughner couldn't get through a math test without writing "Mayhemfest" so I doubt he could've passed a gun licensing test) and if you sell or otherwise provide a gun to an individual not licensed to use the gun, you are held criminally and civilly responsible for the damage they cause. I'd be open to possible "classes" for different sorts of guns, with the crazy military-style requiring special tests, but still being open for anyone who passes the test to own.
Jenny Had A Chance at January 17, 2011 7:56 AM
@Jenny the basic problem with that approach is that whenever it's been tried, state and local governments impose unfair requirements. They use the testing and ancillary requirements as a way to ban firearms.
A contemporary example is w/ licenses / permits to carry a concealed handgun. Most states issue these, though some don't require them. Even CA, NY, and MA issue them, but only to people who are wealthy, famous, or have friends in the government. Normal people can't get them, so they have no ability to carry a firearm for protection in their state. If this applied to ownership as well, then normal people couldn't own firearms in those states, only criminals and the well connected.
gunsamungus at January 17, 2011 8:33 AM
Another problem with the "car ownership" analogy is that the requirments described are to operate a vehicle on the public roads. Plenty of people own & operate their cars & motorcycles without such requirements - off road, racing, track only, etc.
There's a crossover with the legally required insurance issue, too. All of that with which I'm familiar is liability for vehicles operated on public roads.
dts-01 at January 17, 2011 9:25 AM
Oh, the line wherever the most recent nationally publicized shooting occurred. He used a Glock, so of course if we ban Glocks, Gabrielle Giffords never would have been shot.
(And the NPR reporting her as dead didn't help much. "The report of my death is an exaggeration." -- Samuel Clemens.)
Because we know, of course, that those who intend to go shooting Representatives and indiscriminately open fire on an assembled crowd would never acquire an illegal weapon to do the job, and they're all just too stupid to consider another weapon to do the job. Just ban Glocks, and assassinations will be a thing of the past.
Gun control idiots...what more needs to be said? Those three words cover it all.
Patrick at January 17, 2011 9:55 AM
A literal reading of the 2nd amendment (what lawyers called black-letter law, with no imputed meanings) is that we have the right to be armed, with no restrictions. Your neighbor can have RPGs, weaponable anthrax, cyanide grenades, AK-47s etc. If laser guns are perfected, he can have those too.
Purported originalists, such as Justice Scalia, would argue the Founders intended it to mean that every male (probably while male) can have single shot rifles, pistols, and tomahawks, crossbows, etc. The is the strict interpretation of the Constitution, from the originalist position.
(I say "purported" in reference to Scalia reverts to plain-old right-wingism sans principle when it is convenient).
The Founding Fathers were loath to have a permanent standing military, and preferred citizen militias. Our Founding Fathers detested standing militaries. This used to be a conservative, Constitutionalist position--people forget, Republicans resisted preparing for, and then entering WWII, and then they quickly demobilized the USA after WWII.
We were unprepared for our invasion and occupation of Korea, just a few years later. President Eisenhower, who thought the K. war was a so-so idea, refused to prosecutre it (it started under Truman), and settled it on the current DMZ as quickly as he could. We rapidly demobilized again, after Korea.
Still, even without citizen militias, neither reading of the Constitution, either strict and literal, or originalist, seems to fit today.
Having a kook neighbor armed with RPGs, anthrax and AK-47s strikes me as a bad idea--and when 30 college kids get shot down, we are reminded of that. And we do not know who will turn kook-gun-nut.
But limiting current-day American to single-shot pistols and rifles seems out of whack too.
So, standing on no principle--since a sensible principle in this case is not written into the Constiution by any principled interpetation--I fall back on the postion that six-shot revolvers are the limit. You can protect yourself fine wih one of those.
BTW, no one else is standing on principle in this debate either. Pompous posturing, sermonettes and pettifogging, usually by pro-gun-nuts, is not principle.
Guns protect your freedoms? Sure, women got the vote to vote in America after laying seige to Fort Sumter. Blacks won the right to vote in the South in the 1960s, after they brandished automatic firewarms in the Georgia state capital, and shot half the legislature dead.
BOTU at January 17, 2011 10:16 AM
And BOTU is assaulting deceased equines again.
An originalist would not interpret the second amendment to mean "only the personal weapons that have been invented thus far". I can tell you that Scalia would most likely come down on the side of personal weapons should not be restricted except as directed in the Constitution, and anything squad-level or higher is the purview of the military.
brian at January 17, 2011 11:35 AM
I wrote this reply to a commentary piece on another site, so don't feel it is addressed to you personally...
The U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights to anyone. The Constitution (or any constitution) is a restriction on government, not the people. The People retain all their pre-existing natural birthrights. The Bill of Rights lists particularly odious government actions against certain rights and attempts to restrict goverment action against those pre-existing rights of the people. Your attempt to define "well regulated" as governmental codes, instead of proficient at the use of arms, illustrates your lack of understanding of muliple subjects. Well regulated could just as well mean that the body of the militia is efficient at disposing of waste given your logic. The lack of the California Constitution having a "right to keep and bear arms" provision does not mean that the people don't have the right to do so, and the right is a birthright and pre-exists the California Constitution. The people of California retain this right along with all others regardless of the numerous laws and "regulations" that are imposed on us by the government of this state. As others have said, read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, which are written in plain English, and you'll start to have an inkling of what those who wrote, supported and opposed our Federal Constitution at its creation really meant. One does not need lawyers nor judges to explain what the founders meant.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe
Tench Coxe
(May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".
* The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
o The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
* Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
o "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Jay J. Hector at January 17, 2011 11:40 AM
All of you guys are wasting your time. What we need is the bullets control not gun control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAoMNEQo4sQ
Chang at January 17, 2011 12:11 PM
I can control my bullets very well, thank you. They go right where I point them.
brian at January 17, 2011 12:29 PM
And here I thought we were going to have a gun control debate without BOTU bringing up the founding fathers.
Much of the founding fathers' concerns over having a standing army were inherited from Britain. The British have traditionally deplored having a standing army on British soil. This stems from the British Army often being used to impose the king's will on the people.
Even today, the British Parliament annually votes to approve having a standing army (in a mostly ceremonial vote). And the British Army is the only branch of the services not designated "royal" (as in Royal Navy or Royal Air Force).
The founding fathers' concern with standing armies was that, in their time, standing armies had been used to oppress the citizenry (e.g., the British and French armies) or had become distinct power blocs in national politics (e.g. the Janissaries) or had been used to foment near-constant state of war (e.g., all of Europe).
Ironically, all the founding fathers who became president sent American armed forces into battle with foreign forces and came to regard a standing army as a valuable instrument of statecraft.
John Adams built a large standing army and navy when faced with the possibility of war with France.
Both Jefferson and Madison sent military expeditions against the Barbary States.
Jefferson established the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Madison went to war with Britain in 1812 and nearly turned the country back into a British colony. He accepted the need for a trained standing army after the militia he personally commanded was quickly routed by British regulars outside Washington in 1814. Those British regulars went on to burn the White House and loot Washington, DC.
Monroe sent a military expedition against Spanish Florida. Afterward, he denied ordering Jackson to invade Florida, but was quick to seize the opportunity to negotiate with the Spanish to turn Florida over to the US.
Conan the Grammarian at January 17, 2011 1:12 PM
"I'd be plenty pleased if gun ownership and use were more like car ownership."
So would I!
Just think!
Anyone can buy one. The license is only for use on public land. No more getting approval from the Federal agent for each and every purchase. You could use cash and not be identified at all. You can have a muffler without paying a special tax, too.
See Dave Kopel's article on the subject.
Some people know so little about the subject they have suggested this as if it would mean more controls. Nope!
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 1:22 PM
BTW, it was Robert Heinlein who said, "An armed society is a polite society".
But that isn't because of the fear of violence. The discipline of having the means to apply deadly force leads to careful behavior - not fear.
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 1:25 PM
"I can control my bullets very well, thank you. They go right where I point them."
Why bother?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY&feature=related
Chang at January 17, 2011 1:47 PM
Which guns are approporiate? Evertything up to an assault rifle. This is what the criminals and the government has, so this is what we should be allowed to have. Of course the liberal idiots in CA make you jump thru hoops to practive your second amendment "rights". Oye, the gun used is not the issue, the whack job shooting it is the issue. Why doesn't the MSM focus on that dipshit sheriff who told everyone his department "was on top of this guy". Ya, so much so that he was able to purchase a gun. Not that is being "on top of this guy". BTW Glock is a damn fine pistol, light, well balanced, easy to maintain, and has a damn comfortable grip. I would like to see everyone wear one in public. These issues would not happen if we were allowed open carry as we should be.
ronc at January 17, 2011 2:10 PM
"Much of the founding fathers' concerns over having a standing army were inherited from Britain. The British have traditionally deplored having a standing army on British soil. This stems from the British Army often being used to impose the king's will on the people."
Right, and this is demonstrated by the inclusion of the Third Amendment. It was a considerable worry of the Founders that a military junta would emerge and become a political power in its own right. This is why to this day the military is so heavily structured so as to keep it out of partisan politics, and why the President is also the Commander in Chief. As it's worked out, the Third Amendment has been a non-issue in the history of American jurisprudence, but the Founders didn't know it was going to work out that well.
As far as what weapons should be considered "arms" in the Second Amendment context: think of the difference between defensive weapons and assault weapons (and by "assault weapons" I mean in the military sense). Defensive weapons usually have these characteristics: (1) operable by one person, (2) precision strike, (3) useful in close quarters, (4) deployable at a moment's notice, and (5) don't require a ton of maintenance. Assault weapons usually rely on sheer overwhelming force, so they don't meet (2); a lot of modern ones require a crew to operate and maintain, so they don't meet don't meet (1) and (5). A lot of them require advance planning to deploy, so they don't meet (4), and most of them are useless in close quarters (just about as likely to kill the user as the enemy), so they don't meet (5).
By my reading, machine guns (by which I mean guns that fire many rounds per second) are assault weapons and so are not guaranteed by the Second Amendment; most machine guns aren't very accurate and they are very difficult to use in close quarters. Now, we can debate what the meaning of "many" in the sentence "many rounds per second" is.
Cousin Dave at January 17, 2011 3:55 PM
Don't miss the Quiz!
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 4:55 PM
The gun-nut-lulus who say if everyone carried a gun, then mass killings could not happen...have you ever seen a cross-fire? Suppose a nut starts shooting, and then then the surrounding crowd starts firing back...and then firing some more, as those guys on the other side of room are firing at you, so you are firing at them, and they are firing at you to defend themselves...oh, that could get messy.
Sheesh, I have lived and worked in central L.A. for two decades now. Supposedly, I live in a "gang" neighborhood, although murders are way down now. No one has ever entered my property, and it they did, I think a shot from a revolver would scare them off (in addition to my big dog, although he loves everybody).
I can't understand freaks in West L.A. talking about guns. There is something like one murder a year in West LA, and that somebody knocking off their spouse.
America is becoming a nation of pansies and punks, who are unable to determine real risk. Americans fear terrorists and armed home invasions, both rare, and talk about standing up to government should the time come (with your guns?. Have you formed militias, and trained? If so, you are probably totally insane, and if we did take guns away from the mentally unbalanced, you would lose yours). Or do you plan single-handedly to stop the federal government?
Meanwhile, 30,000 Americans die every year in auto accidents.
I guess you guys must be the idiots who play the lotto and hope to hit it big.
Me, I am waiting by my phone in case Jennifer Lopez calls me up and wants to spoil me with riches. It could happen too.
We all have our game plans.
BOTU at January 17, 2011 5:08 PM
Lets assume for the sake of argumet the government acctually found a way to ban all guns so that even criminals were unable to get them.
Criminals would use knives, and then these morons would try banning knives from being used by the public.
Punishing or restricting law abiding citizens doesnt do shit to stop crime
lujlp at January 17, 2011 5:09 PM
Gee, Cousin Dave, what's the difference between an AK and an AKS, and who told you an assault weapon was "difficult to use in close quarters"?
The most highly qualified man in America teaches otherwise.
Here, I'll quote him:
"Rifles are the individually operated choice of weapons systems for personal defense."
I enjoy just reading about the curriculum at his school. It's nice to see somebody actually knows what they are doing.
To all: Take a few minutes to read the Thunder Ranch course guide. It should impress you that there is a LOT to know about firearms. There are shooters with truly amazing capabilities - in their profession, they are every bit the artist you might see in a national gallery.
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 5:10 PM
"We all have our game plans."
Apparently, yours is to sweat, tremble, and make meaningless noises.
You really need to learn about this issue, so you can quit embarrassing yourself. This isn't about whether you should use a personal lubricant.
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 5:14 PM
ignore the troll rad, he is a moron. I would rather have someone die by mistake then sitback and watch some idiot take out 30+ kids a a mcdonalds. One is passive the other is not. Sit back and die butthead, and take your gene pool with you
ronc at January 17, 2011 5:49 PM
Rad, I'm talking about something like an M240B. If you give a casual shooter one of those, and a good shooter a Beretta 92, then unless the guy with the M240B behemoth already has his weapon trained on target, the guy with the Beretta's going to take him.
Cousin Dave at January 17, 2011 6:07 PM
Funny, Cousin Dave, the industry patter about "assault weapons" follows the original StG44 and its descendents, not the M240B. I mean, c'mon, it's "crew served", like the M60. Rambo and other fit guys can one-arm it, but not for long. While Rambo was tearing up the police station, you could've run up behind him an popped him with a peen hammer. Who needs a Beretta pistol?
You've compared apples and oranges. Look at the effective ranges!
Hey, there's the link to Thunder Ranch. Look at what the pros recommend.
----
By the way - are you wondering what you CAN buy?
Got $72,500?
Buy that, you'll be one of about 250 thousand machine gun owners in the USA.
If only the use of unregistered mouths was as responsible as those MG owners!
Radwaste at January 17, 2011 7:44 PM
Only one person touched on the fact that the founders did not think of the Second Amendment as allowing us anything...it was just identifying and protecting a birthright.
My birthrights end where they infringe upon yours. So my rights to own a gun is dependent upon not infringing on your rights...if I hurt someone else with a weapon I should loose my rights to own a gun. That is why my understanding felons can't own weapons.
If you own the biggest tank, nuke, or whatever, it is by no means infringing upon my rights until you actually use it. I don't see any crime in owning ANY weapon as long as no one gets hurts. I don't think it is ethical for me to decide to take away your possession because you might use it againt me.
Cat at January 17, 2011 8:41 PM
"... more with people calling for a ban on Glocks ...."
The same refrain I heard when Glocks first came on the market a couple of decades ago. Where have these people been? Certainly not anywhere near firearms. Glock's pioneering features: polymer frame, a striker (instead of a hammer), a trigger safety. All are standard features on modern-design handguns.
Sean at January 17, 2011 9:28 PM
Read it this time folks . . .
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe
Tench Coxe
(May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".
* The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
o The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
* Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
o "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Repeat:
"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
"Unlimited power of the sword."
It's not just the power to hunt, or just the power of self-defense, but includes the pre-existing right of the power of war that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to the people.
Read it:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln
1st Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
It ain't the Federal or State governments that have a monopoly on the instruments of war. The People retain this pre-existing right and check and balance the goverments.
Like it or not, this is the way it is.
Jay J. Hector at January 18, 2011 3:24 AM
"I can only assume that the Founding Fathers took the right to self-defense as a given ..."
We don't have to speculate what the founding fathers had in mind with the 2nd Amendment because they wrote right into the Declaration of Independence:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
The Founding Fathers wrote in plain English that it is there to protect you FROM YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT GOING BAD. (Which it has.)
To this end, it follows that the 'governed' must logically be able to retain enough firepower so that the balance of power remains in their favor over those that govern, or at least, a careful balance of power between the two. The Founding Fathers did not have things like pepper spray in mind.
The very fact that we're having this discussion denotes an attack by bad government trying to take away the rights of the people and trample on the constitution.
Lobster at January 18, 2011 4:16 AM
"The sheer scale of technological innovation and the enormous expense of it's most advance weapons means that the federal government has long had the power to kill everyone on Earth, much less put down a rebellion by voters"
Is that why the US has had such an easy time winning the Iraq war? Oh wait, it hasn't. It's a LOT easier to simply kill everyone in a country or state (gee, just drop nukes) than to selectively destroy a scattered resistance movement fighting a geurilla war living amongst an armed populace. If the US military can't even beat a small weak state like Iraq, they have no hope against a huge well-armed and economically strong population like the US citizenry.
The government couldn't beat a voter rebellion by "killing everyone" because they would kill themselves in the process. That's also ignoring the fact that the government can only fund its rebellion from taxation or bonds - if it killed everyone, there would be no economy to tax, and no economy to back a bond market. Hence no money to fight such a war.
Lobster at January 18, 2011 4:34 AM
"The People retain this pre-existing right and check and balance the goverments.
Like it or not, this is the way it is."
Yeah, frankly, that is America and ALWAYS will be ... so if you'd rather live in a country where the state has ultimate power and the citizenry is at the mercy of the state, America is frankly not really the place for you, go live in Europe (Worked well for the Jews in WWII.)
Lobster at January 18, 2011 4:37 AM
PS to answer the question, I'd perhaps draw the line at private ownership of nuclear weapons - they're by definition extremely blunt instruments. Everything else seems to arguably have a legitimate use, even private tank ownership would be useful for the security of a free state in the situation where a government becomes destructive of the ends of liberty (incidentally, such as our current government).
Lobster at January 18, 2011 4:42 AM
"The same refrain I heard when Glocks first came on the market a couple of decades ago. Where have these people been"
It doesn't make sense to ban 'Glocks' because that's just a brand name, it would be like caling to ban 'MacDonalds' [only] if you don't like junk food. A call to ban Glocks sounds like either confusion about what they are, or market protectionism propaganda from local US manufacturers looking to discredit a foreign competitor (Austrian, IIRC?) that has been doing extremely well. Glocks are popular amongst law enforcement partly because of the trigger safety, which allows the gun to be 'ready to use quickly' for law enforcement in the face of a sudden surprise attack situation.
Lobster at January 18, 2011 4:46 AM
If you have the room, and can use it without bothering anyone, go for it. Only when your rights infringe on others. I would love a Krupp 88mm, the one that can be used as an anti-aircraft gun or a tank destroyer.
I draw the line at nuclear weapons, because they do bother other folks and are messy. Worldwide messy. Other than that, knock yourself out.
William the Coroner at January 18, 2011 6:22 AM
Does anyone else find it funny that the people who claim "the 2nd amendment only allows muskets" have no problem accepting that something like abortion (never mentioned in the Bill of Rights) absolutely has to be permitted because it kinda/sorta/might-be/maybe included under an amendment which says nothing of the sort?
Cars kill more people than guns do. Yet only gaia-loons suggest banning cars.
Swimming pools have more deadly accidents than guns do. Where but water-nazi California are pools under attack?
Guns are illegal in England, which is an island. Yet the criminals have guns aplenty. How exactly would a gun ban be effective in America, with thousands of miles of land borders which can be crossed on foot?
A woman, an elderly person...neither of them can adequately defend themselves against an adult male without a decisive weapon. The gun is an equalizer, putting law-abiding citizens on equal footing with the criminal element.
Gunnutmegger at January 18, 2011 5:37 PM
"Funny, Cousin Dave, the industry patter about "assault weapons" follows the original StG44 and its descendents, not the M240B. "
Yeah... the point I was originally trying to make, and evidently I didn't do a very good job, is that the line between defense/hunting weapons and weapons that are only useful from a military standpoint isn't that hard to draw, in most cases. However, gun opponents use the phrase "assault weapon" to try to blur that distinction. Because it feeds into that line of thinking that the Second Amendment only authorizes the states to maintain National Guards.
Cousin Dave at January 18, 2011 5:56 PM
"Because it feeds into that line of thinking that the Second Amendment only authorizes the states to maintain National Guards."
Do what I do when presented with such an argument: point at the fence.
"Read the fence at the Guard armory. It says, 'US Government Property'. While you are having you home razed by marauders, the governor of your state or the President can order the National Guard to wax his limousines. Read the fence. The Guard does not belong to you."
As I posted above, people desperately point at others to do the nasty work. They will do anything for convenience.
Radwaste at January 18, 2011 7:36 PM
"Does anyone else find it funny that the people who claim "the 2nd amendment only allows muskets" have no problem accepting that something like abortion (never mentioned in the Bill of Rights) absolutely has to be permitted because it kinda/sorta/might-be/maybe included under an amendment which says nothing of the sort?"
Gunnutmegger,
Don't make the mistake of thinking the Constitution or the Bill of Rights give anyone any rights at all. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a pre-existing right just like arms, and governments have no business meddling. It's the same with same-sex marriage, it's not government's business to say one can or can't marry anyone or anything they want. One is still free to dislike abortion or same-sex marriage, but not to deny anyone's right to exercise their rights.
The People retain all rights, not just what is mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Those rights mentioned in the C&BOR are the People placing govermental restrictions on certain odious actions by governments in the past (and what a government might do in the future), not a deliniation of what rights the People have.
No one need mention any right at all, but one still has a right even if not mentioned until it is exercised.
Listen to Alexander Hamilton on the proposed Bill of Rights . . .
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575--81
28 May 1788
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
You can apply this to the Second Amendment and/or any Amendment of the Constitution.
No authority was given under the Constitution to infringe the 2nd Amendment, nor any Amendment or Right.
Jay J. Hector at January 18, 2011 8:44 PM
"shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". It couldn't be more clearer. It doesn't say "shall be partially infringed". It doesn't say "shall not be entirely infringed", or 'shall not be more than somewhat infringed", or "shall be infringed in certain circumstances or locations". It doesn't say "shall not be infringed, unless the people go into hysterics over the occasional nutjob mis-using firearms". It says "shall not". No ifs, ands or buts, sorry, so to those who want to destroy liberty, get that idea out of your heads, or you WILL become the target of revolutionary resistance. Which part of "shall not" don't people understand? Anyone who seeks to infringe 2nd amendment liberties even in the slightest, is not American, is against America, is an enemy of America, and is attacking America.
Lobster at January 19, 2011 5:50 AM
Ron: Note that from the time of the Revolution to the present day it has been legal for individual Americans to own muzzle-loading cannons and mortars - even loaded with shot, to make area-effect weapons.
(Breech-loading cannons are regulated by the National Firearms Act, as are explosive shells, but... the biggest artillery of the Revolutionary era were legal for private ownership in 1789, and still are.)
This doesn't really affect the useful distinction (which I would probably make as "crew-served" vs. "individual" weapons, with the additional suggestion that perhaps indirect fire might be relevant more than point vs. area effect), but it's a useful factual point.
I'm not sure that artillery would be very useful against a tyrannical State, as opposed to rifles; artillery is good for destroying a city, if used in massive amounts. With laser or GPS guidance, it's good for pinpoint strikes against a target you designate.
It's just not very effective in individual hands against a State gone bad, so we could argue that it's beyond the intent of the Second Amendment, which is to make the cost of tyranny, in the last, very high.
(It may be counter-intuitive, but a rifle is far more useful in such a role, being capable of far more rapid movement, and capable of direct and accurate strikes at significant range. All of those things make a potential tyrant and his general staff blanch more than the possibility of mortars or cannons.
"A rifle behind every blade of grass" is what is attributed [probably falsely] to Yamamoto. Even if he didn't say it, it's true.)
I'd say that for the intent of the Second Amendment, simply allowing automatic weapons would probably suffice in addition to what we have now.
I'd also remove the restrictions on overall length and barrel length as stupid and pointless (and slightly, though not especially, harmful to militia utility), and that on suppressors as harmful to good practice and of no actual value for "preventing crime", which was its original justification.
Sigivald at January 19, 2011 2:28 PM
Weapons are already self limiting. Even the "Cheap" ones aren't that cheap.
The types of weapons that everyone wets the bed over are very expensive. The type of unstable nutjob you don't want to own one of these can't hold down a job at McDonalds. He'll simply never be able to get one.
People who CAN afford those weapons have high income, businesses, or valuable things they will lose if they use the weapons irresponsibly.
ErikZ at January 21, 2011 7:14 AM
Leave a comment