Official Gun Control Debate Thread II

Recommended Posts

Andrew    2,731

A new year, a new discussion! Feel free to continue any discussions from the previous pinned topic.

 

Please post all new articles and discussion questions pertaining to gun control in this official thread. Any new threads that are started on this topic will be merged here.

 

Please be respectful of others' beliefs and don't forget the forum rules!

 

No Cursing or Swear Words
We encourage you to use our communities as a forum to debate topics, but please use proper adjectives to express yourself. We do not tolerate circumvention of our word filter or abuse upon another member. As stated above, we are a forum for all ages and expect posts to be family / work friendly.

 

No Racism, Threatening, No Victimization or Hateful Posts / Retaliation
If you are a long standing member, act like one; lead by example and assist other newer users rather than attacking them. We look upon our veteran users to use this opportunity to teach the newer users the appropriate way to conduct themselves in this community.

 

No Personal Attacks or Retaliation
Personal attacks such as instigating "flame bait", verbal abuse, mocking or sexist remarks of members is not tolerated at Neowin. Such content will be deleted on sight or moderated accordingly.

As above, if you are a long standing member, act like one. Lead by example and assist other newer members rather than attacking them. Members that reply to simply instigate argument will be warned / suspended from forum areas.

 

Post On Topic.
Please post on topic and within the subject area of the subforum. If your topic does not fit, please use our General Discussions area. If you have questions on the correct content area, please PM a moderator.

Use a title that describes the content of your post. Don't use all caps or special characters to draw attention to your post. This is an English speaking site, and we expect all posts to be in English. Links must resolve to other English speaking sites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765

I have a SIG P320, and it's modular hammer fired predecessor the SIG P250, and it is nice. A crisp double action with a quick reset, and accurate. Very accurate.

 

The P320 is rapidly, and tool free, changeable between calibers, handle sizes for different shooters, and frame sizes for different applications; subcompact for deep conceal, carry or compact for general carry, and a full size service pistol. The entire fire control system is in one compact module, which is the only part with a serial number. 

 

Military.com....

 


Army Picks Sig Sauer's P320 Handgun to Replace M9 Service Pistol

LAS VEGAS -- The U.S. Army on Thursday awarded Sig Sauer a contract worth $580 million to make the next service pistol based on the company's P320 handgun.

Sig Sauer beat out Glock Inc., FN America and Beretta USA, the maker of the current M9 9mm service pistol, in the competition for the Modular Handgun System, or MHS, program.

"We are both humbled and proud that the P320 was selected by the U.S. Army as its weapon of choice," Ron Cohen, chief executive officer of Sig Sauer, said in a statement to Military.com here at SHOT Show, the world's largest gun show, taking place this week in the city.

"Securing this contract is a testimony to Sig Sauer employees, their commitment to innovation, quality and manufacturing the most reliable firearms in the world," Cohen added.

The 10-year agreement calls for Sig to supply the Army with full-size and compact versions of the gun. The pistols can be outfitted with silencers and accommodate standard and extended capacity magazines. The firearms will be manufactured at the company's facilities in New Hampshire.

The Army launched its long-awaited XM17 MHS competition in late August 2015 to replace its Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol.

"By maximizing full and open competition across our industry partners, we have optimized private sector advancements in handguns, ammunition and magazines, and the end result will ensure a decidedly superior weapon system for our warfighters," Army Acquisition Executive Steffanie Easter said said in a press release.

One of the major goals of the effort was to adopt a pistol chambered for a more potent round than the current 9mm. The U.S. military replaced the .45 caliber 1911 pistol with the M9 in 1985 and began using the 9mm NATO round at that time.

In their statements, Army and Sig officials didn't specify what caliber the new Sig Sauer pistol will be.

Sig touts the P320 model product as "modular" and "adaptable," with interchangeable grips, multiple sizes and calibers that can be converted between 9mm, .357SIG and .40S&W. "From calibers, to pistol size, to the grip fit best suited for the shooter, the P320 is the most adaptable pistol available today," the company says in promotional materials.

Two sources confirmed to Military.com that Sig submitted to the Army .40-caliber and 9mm pistols for consideration. One source said the Army ultimately selected the 9mm version.

Shortly after the contract announcement, Sig officials celebrated here at  the show. Staff at the Sig Sauer booth set out champagne flutes for a celebratory toast.

The Army in December down-selected to two finalists for the competition: Sig and Glock, which had submitted its Glock 17 and Glock 19 models for consideration. Given the size of the contract, Glock is widely expected to protest the decision.

Brandie Collins, communications manager for Glock, said she had not been briefed on the contract award but wished the winners well.

Army officials informed Beretta USA and FN America at the show that they had been dropped from the competition in the recent down-select decision, according to a service source who is not authorized to speak to the press. But confusion reigned as reporters informed company officials of the Army's announcement.

The decision formally ends the Beretta's 30-year hold on the Army's sidearm market.

Gabrielle de Plano, vice president of Beretta Defense Technologies marketing and operations, said staff were still reading through the contract announcement to fully understand it.

"It's going to have to be a no comment from us for now," he said.

Beretta has fought hard to remain to remain the Army's pistol maker. In December 2014, Beretta USA submitted its modernized M9A3 as a possible alternative to the Army's Modular Handgun System program.

But the Army rejected the improved M9A3, which featured new sights, a rail for mounting lights and accessories, better ergonomics and improved reliability. The company, however, wasn't finished yet. It developed a new striker-fired pistol, the APX, and entered it into the competition.

Kristina DeMilt, public relations for FN, said officials at the show hadn't been informed of the award and were not immediately prepared to comment.

The Army began working with the small arms industry on Modular Handgun System in early 2013, but the joint effort has been in the works for more than five years. It could result in the Defense Department buying nearly 500,000 new pistols.

Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns, according to Program Executive Office Soldier officials. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun.

The other military services participating in the program may order an additional 212,000 systems above the Army quantity.
>

 

P320s.jpg

 

P320_breakdown.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765

The Army version also gets an optional extended mag and standard silencer capability.

 

Standard 9mm mag: 15+1
Extended 9mm mag: 21+1

 

P320_army.jpg

 

SIG has also come out with a CO2 .177 pellet/steel BB P320 with a 30 shot capacity, matching trigger feel, full weight and blowback slide. Cheaper practice.

 

SigP320AirART-768x563.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    7,235
On 1/21/2017 at 6:06 AM, DocM said:

The Army version also gets an optional extended mag and standard silencer capability.

 

Standard 9mm mag: 15+1
Extended 9mm mag: 21+1

 

P320_army.jpg

 

SIG has also come out with a CO2 .177 pellet/steel BB P320 with a 30 shot capacity, matching trigger feel, full weight and blowback slide. Cheaper practice.

 

SigP320AirART-768x563.jpg

Love the color of those 2 unless they're the same color. Still nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765

I think they're the same color but lit differently (2 different articles.) The SIG P250 (hammer) and P320 (striker) are neat firearms, and thoroughly reliable given good quality ammo. 

 

SIG has also come out with a P320 with reflex optical sights,

 

320f-9-bss-rx.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765
59 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

It's a lead based ammunition ban on federal lands, which I could live with since lead free ammo and shot shells for hunting are in the market and is required for some uses.

 

Example: lead shot was banned for waterfowl hunting in 1991, but not for upland fowl or game hunting which are usually regulated by the states.

 

The problem is that lead shot etc. can cause lead poisoning in waterfowl when non-fatally wounded or eaten, pellets settled to the bottom of waters, hence the ban there.

 

Of course this doesn't stop lead shot fired for upland hunting half a mile away from falling in the wetlands, in a river or being dissolved into runoff by acidic rain.

 

The alternatives are usually steel shot, copper or copper alloys.

 

http://huntingwithnonlead.org

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,226

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+T3X4S    4,432
19 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

 

Absolutely brilliant.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    7,235
Quote

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
 

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    7,235
8 hours ago, wakjak said:

the guns banned under Maryland's law

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tbnorris    3

This is more than carry concealed. This is why I am a life member of the NRA and oppose most new anti-gun laws:

 

Years ago while in Walter Reed Army Hospital for 1 year after the Gulf War I read everything about WW1, WW2, and Korea in the library. One thing that really stuck out and convinced me that the 2nd amendment and the Individual right to bear arms was so important. This is also a good argument about not banning semi-automatic rifles. Admiral Yamamoto was asked "Why didn't he invade the United States?". His answer was simple: "Because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.:"

Most of the other countries in Europe didn't have this right and Germany made short work of them in their Conquest of Europe. During the recent debate about guns you never hear the good stuff like this. When our rifles are gone so are we.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765
On 2/23/2017 at 3:11 PM, wakjak said:

the guns banned under Maryland's law

The decision is arbitrary, and probably won't stand up given the coming appointments to the Supreme Court.

 

The cartridges used in weapons of war are derived from standard hunting rounds, and very often are much less powerful. The 5.56mm NATO used in most AR-15's started out as the .223 Remington which is used for larger small game like marmots, coyotes etc. Illegal to hunt deer with it in most states - too small. The .308 NATO is based on the .308 Winchester, a standard deer hunting round throughout North America.

 

The firearms only differ from hunting weapons in appearance and the size of their magazine. All the rest is accessory mounts, weatherproofing, a carry handle etc. Nothing which can't be added to a hunting rifle. 

 

The below are functional equivalents save for the magazine size and looks. Banning on looks makes as much sense as banning a cool car because it subjectively looks like what the observer perceives is how a racer looks.

 

semiautointro.jpg?itok=RTJGBb49

 

What's different in a war weapon like M-16? Full automatic fire. That's it, and without a special federal license and tax stamp civilian "black rifles" can't have.

 

To be honest, I could do more damage in a room using a shotgun than an AK or AR.  One 12ga Magnum shotgun shell can launch as many .30 caliber projectiles as a 20 round mag in an AK-47.

 

Most of those wounded/killed in the Aurora theater shooting were hit by shotgun pellets, not his pistols or the rifle he had which jammed almost immediately.

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    239

"Weapons of war" sounds like an argument from out of the Ninth (California) Circuit - not the Fourth; however, this IS Maryland we're talking about.  Worse, he is the guy with a vested interest in preserving his "pet law" (props to WaPo for pointing that out).  It was also a rather lopsided (though not a whitewash) 10-4 win (hence it was the entire Fourth Circuit - not a subset) - and with only eight Justices, the chances of a deadlock (which would preserve the win) are tall at the SCOTUS level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mirumir    5,226

source.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, PGHammer said:

>

It was also a rather lopsided (though not a whitewash) 10-4 win (hence it was the entire Fourth Circuit - not a subset) - and with only eight Justices, the chances of a deadlock (which would preserve the win) are tall at the SCOTUS level.

I disagree. The appeal likely won't be heard at SCOTUS until after May 1 as the arguments calendar before then is full and published.

 

Gorsuch will have a vote long before that - likely between the the March 19–April 3 and April 30–May 8 Senate recesses. Perhaps before March 19 if Republicans push it.

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765
Posted (edited)

Our overseas friends should read this story, written by an Indian-American CNN reporter who visited this weeks NRA convention in Atlanta. She actually talked to members, and came way with much to think about.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/world/indian-immigrant-nra-convention/index.html

 

Quote

From Gandhi to guns: An Indian woman explores the NRA convention

>
>
It's no wonder then that every time I visit India, my friends and family want to know more about America's "love affair" with guns.

I get the same questions when I visit my brother in Canada or on my business travels to other countries, where many people remain perplexed, maybe even downright mystified, by Americans' defense of gun rights.

I admit I do not fully understand it myself, despite having become an American citizen nearly a decade ago. So when I learn the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention here in Atlanta, right next to the CNN Center, I decide to go and find out more.
>
>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    849

i wander far from my usual haunts here but noticed that a thread about gun control appeared to be a "love in" for guns.

 

It seems to me that guns are absolutely the most horrible of things that have the potential to end the life of a human being and although humans probably need a sense of dark humor about just about any subject in order to survive the up and downs of life, guns seem to be taken too lightly but that's just me perhaps.

 

There is a ridiculous number of people killed every year from accidental gun deaths and also criminal use of these devices to kill people as well. It seems to me that there should be a system or process put in place to prevent this from happening.

 

So why are there so many gun deaths from easily purchased guns in the U.S. and how could you stop it. Here is my proposed solution:

 

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was obviously put in place to clarify a fundamental human document, The Preamble to United States Declaration of Independence where it states "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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

 

 

2. Alexander Hamilton clearly explained the purpose "f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

3. Clearly, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the citizens of the United States can defeat the U.S. Military in battle. Therefore simple logic dictates that in the year 2017, citizens should be permitted to own tanks, anti-tank missiles, at least shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles, possibly small attack ships and submarines and various military aircraft. Presumably a reasonable percentage of the U.S. Military would join the citizens and modern Game Theory should easily work out a suitable mix of military hardware that an average citizen needs to own in order to achieve this basic Right to Revolution fundamental to the basic nature of the U.S. itself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

 

4. If individuals can be confident in the ownership of anti-aircraft, heavy artillery, bazookas, etc then as a reasonable compromise, the use of handguns could be removed as a right since compared to actual military hardware, the handgun would be of marginal benefit in the exercise of what the Second Amendment is designed to achieve.

 

5. Penalties for the misuse of heavy weaponry outside of an actual revolution would be severe, nobody would own handguns and lives would be saved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765
Posted (edited)
On 6/19/2017 at 11:00 PM, DevTech said:

i wander far from my usual haunts here but noticed that a thread about gun control appeared to be a "love in" for guns.

 

It seems to me that guns are absolutely the most horrible of things that have the potential to end the life of a human being and although humans probably need a sense of dark humor about just about any subject in order to survive the up and downs of life, guns seem to be taken too lightly but that's just me perhaps.

North America is quite large with a low population (and police) density, more than a few 2 legged predators who will gladly invade your home and do unspeakable things long before the police arrive, and large numbers of rural and other people do subsistence hunting of small and large game, plus the shooting sports; skeet, trap, 3D target, range targets etc..

 

Quote

There is a ridiculous number of people killed every year from accidental gun deaths and also criminal use of these devices to kill people as well. It seems to me that there should be a system or process put in place to prevent this from happening.

There are different classes of "gun deaths" which need to be considered separately.

 

2014: 11,961 non-suicide deaths from all weapon types, including knives, bludgeoning, poison etc. 

 

Suicide: ~65% of all gun deaths

 

Justifiable homicide: self defense, defending others, citizens arrests where the criminal resists or attacks, etc.

 

Murders:  8,124 in 2014, which includes a large percentage in drug gang wars. Good luck getting their guns - they'll just import more from Brazil, Europe, Asia....or manufacture them which is not difficult.

 

Accidental:  about 500. In contrast, over 800 people were killed riding bicycles. 

 

Quote

So why are there so many gun deaths from easily purchased guns in the U.S. and how could you stop it. Here is my proposed solution:

See above.

 

Quote

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was obviously put in place to clarify a fundamental human document, The Preamble to United States Declaration of Independence where it states "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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

>

3. Clearly, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the citizens of the United States can defeat the U.S. Military in battle. 

Incorrect, wrong assumption.

 

Recent US Supreme Court decisions; DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago and their follow-on decisions make it very clear, bright-line law, that self defense is included in the 2nd Amendment rights.

 

Regulation of the right to carry a firearm in public, concealed or in the open, and exclusion zones where you cannot carry, are not covered under Federal law so the 10th Amendment cedes those powers to the States. 

 

The Militia function is still there, but is usually associated with the State National Guard units.  Also, in virtually every state citizens have limited police powers which allow them to make a citizen's arrest. Here in Michigan we can use force to make that arrest.

 

Virtually every state allows a person to use a firearm in self defense of self, others or home, and to carry a firearm in public. Here in Michigan over 650,000 citizens have concealed weapons permits, and anyone not excluded by law (felons, underage, seriously mentally ill, under a personal protection order etc.) can carry a weapon openly - meaning so others can see it; pistol, rifle, shotgun, whatever.

 

Quote

Therefore simple logic dictates that in the year 2017, citizens should be permitted to own tanks, anti-tank missiles, at least shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles, possibly small attack ships and submarines and various military aircraft. 

With the proper truck load of paperwork and an anal exam by the Feds, and the paying off a special tax, mostly yes. I know private citizens who own a mini-gun, and there's a tank club nearby.  My neighbor has a civil war cannon which fires. Some private people also own jet fighters like a MIG. Missiles are another issue, but yes to general explosives and grenades.  Almost anyone can buy a .50 cal. Barrett sniper rifle, but $$$$

 

Quote

>

the use of handguns could be removed as a right since compared to actual military hardware, the handgun would be of marginal benefit in the exercise of what the Second Amendment is designed to achieve.

Except that the handgun is the most practical, and portable, self-defense weapon for carrying.  This is particularly true for small individuals, women, the elderly, the handicapped, and those who use mobility devices. They have a 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves too.

 

Quote

5. Penalties for the misuse of heavy weaponry outside of an actual revolution would be severe, nobody would own handguns and lives would be saved.

Self-defense and citizens arrest laws spell out when, who, how etc. Find a guy raping a woman? Yell  "STOP!!", and if he persists - boom.

 

In a true revolutionary war such rules are nonsensical and would disappear in the first 15 minutes, or less.

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    849
18 hours ago, DocM said:

North America is quite large with a low population (and police) density, more than a few 2 legged predators who will gladly invade your home and do unspeakable things long before the police arrive, and large numbers of rural and other people do subsistence hunting of small and large game, plus the shooting sports; skeet, trap, 3D target, range targets etc..

 

There are different classes of "gun deaths" which need to be considered separately.

 

2014: 11,961 non-suicide deaths from all weapon types, including knives, bludgeoning, poison etc. 

 

Suicide: ~65% of all gun deaths

 

Justifiable homicide: self defense, defending others, citizens arrests where the criminal resists or attacks, etc.

 

Murders:  8,124 in 2014, which includes a large percentage in drug gang wars. Good luck getting their guns - they'll just import more from Brazil, Europe, Asia....or manufacture them which is not difficult.

 

Accidental:  about 500. In contrast, over 800 people were killed riding bicycles. 

 

See above.

 

Incorrect, wrong assumption.

 

Recent US Supreme Court decisions; DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago and their follow-on decisions make it very clear, bright-line law, that self defense is included in the 2nd Amendment rights.

 

Regulation of the right to carry a firearm in public, concealed or in the open, and exclusion zones where you cannot carry, are not covered under Federal law so the 10th Amendment cedes those powers to the States. 

 

The Militia function is still there, but is usually associated with the State National Guard units.  Also, in virtually every state citizens have limited police powers which allow them to make a citizen's arrest. Here in Michigan we can use force to make that arrest.

 

Virtually every state allows a person to use a firearm in self defense of self, others or home, and to carry a firearm in public. Here in Michigan over 650,000 citizens have concealed weapons permits, and anyone not excluded by law (felons, underage, seriously mentally ill, under a personal protection order etc.) can carry a weapon openly - meaning so others can see it; pistol, rifle, shotgun, whatever.

 

With the proper truck load of paperwork and an anal exam by the Feds, and the paying off a special tax, mostly yes. I know private citizens who own a mini-gun, and there's a tank club nearby.  My neighbor has a civil war cannon which fires. Some private people also own jet fighters like a MIG. Missiles are another issue, but yes to general explosives and grenades.  Almost anyone can buy a .50 cal. Barrett sniper rifle, but $$$$

 

Except that the handgun is the most practical, and portable, self-defense weapon for carrying.  This is particularly true for small individuals, women, the elderly, the handicapped, and those who use mobility devices. They have a 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves too.

 

Self-defense and citizens arrest laws spell out when, who, how etc. Find a guy raping a woman? Yell  "STOP!!", and if he persists - boom.

 

In a true revolutionary war such rules are nonsensical and would disappear in the first 15 minutes, or less.

Although it may seem incorrect, I am not persuaded by Supreme Court interpretations since I think it distracts from the basic moral high ground of the Second Amendment.

 

However much it might make sense or be desirous for anyone to portray it as directed toward "self-defense' and no matter how noble you or anyone else might hold the concept of "self-defense" to be, logically it falls into a category that is "self-serving" and in the course of human endevours, "self-serving" will always be deserving of skepticism and hence distracting to the noble pure purpose of the Second Amendment.

 

The "Right to Revolution" enshrined as a fundamental tenant of the new democracy, had a glaring flaw of having future potential to be nothing more than meaningless "nice words." The Second Amendment fixed that flaw by clearly providing citizens with the means to take that abstract noble shining light and make it real. "Look World, we really meant what we said"

 

I'm of the thought that if some attempt to was made to have a public political debate about the true purpose of the Second Amendment and as part of that debate a consensual decision not to discuss self-defense or handguns until the main point was hammered out for a modern age, there might be less polarization as neurons would gradually focus on logic.

 

I have no military background, but I don't think odd cases of citizens owning heavy weaponry would lead to a U.S. "Citizens's Army" defeating the fully equipped and trained U.S. Army in combat which clearly with the technology of the 1700's the Founders fully assumed was a plausible outcome based on their own experience with the "Revolutionary Army"

 

It would certainly seem reasonable to assume that in an event so precipitous, most of the current U.S. Army would refuse to fire upon their own friends and family if it looked like an overwhelmingly necessary exercise of Constitutional Rights. The would still leave the statistical likelihood of some sort of "Republican Guard" type units of fully equipped fully trained modern soldiers defending some demagogue authoritarian president they have sworn allegiance to as Commander in Chief (with or without orange hair).

 

The Second Amendment requires that the "Citizen Army" will be the victors here and that legally they must be equipped and trained and skilled in the use of "Arms" required to force this outcome.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    12,765
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, DevTech said:

Although it may seem incorrect, I am not persuaded by Supreme Court interpretations since I think it distracts from the basic moral high ground of the Second Amendment.

 

However much it might make sense or be desirous for anyone to portray it as directed toward "self-defense' and no matter how noble you or anyone else might hold the concept of "self-defense" to be, logically it falls into a category that is "self-serving" and in the course of human endevours, "self-serving" will always be deserving of skepticism and hence distracting to the noble pure purpose of the Second Amendment.

>

>

The Second Amendment requires that the "Citizen Army" will be the victors here and that legally they must be equipped and trained and skilled in the use of "Arms" required to force this outcome>

 

You're confusing what is with what you'd like it to be. It's bright line US law as defined by SCOTUS, and you are twisting things into a pretzel in an attempt to deny it.

 

DC v Heller

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court held:[44]

 

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

>

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. 

>

 

McDonald v Chicago

 

(the states are also bound by DC v Heller and cannot deny arms for self defense)

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

 

Quote

The right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.

 

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+T3X4S    4,432
On 2/23/2017 at 2:45 PM, tbnorris said:

This is more than carry concealed. This is why I am a life member of the NRA and oppose most new anti-gun laws:

 

Years ago while in Walter Reed Army Hospital for 1 year after the Gulf War I read everything about WW1, WW2, and Korea in the library. One thing that really stuck out and convinced me that the 2nd amendment and the Individual right to bear arms was so important. This is also a good argument about not banning semi-automatic rifles. Admiral Yamamoto was asked "Why didn't he invade the United States?". His answer was simple: "Because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.:"

Most of the other countries in Europe didn't have this right and Germany made short work of them in their Conquest of Europe. During the recent debate about guns you never hear the good stuff like this. When our rifles are gone so are we.

....Unfortunately, that quote is almost definitely bogus.  A shame, because its a good one.

Its a very popular misquote from gun advocates, but is widely considered to be completely fabricated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    849
15 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

You're confusing what is with what you'd like it to be. It's bright line US law as defined by SCOTUS, and you are twisting things into a pretzel in an attempt to deny it.

 

DC v Heller

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

McDonald v Chicago

 

(the states are also bound by DC v Heller and cannot deny arms for self defense)

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

 

 

I am not confusing any of that. It is entirely possible that those rulings will end up being the only practical "take away" from the Second Amendment.

 

And it may be a lot of fun to play with handguns and not a lot of fun to consider the ominous duty and sacred contract that is the full intent of the Second Amendment.

 

All I'm saying, is that it might have value to not talk about handguns for a while. Not to change that interpretation, not to encourage any change in laws (other than allowing anti-tank weapons)  but simply to provide clarity on what the rest of it means in this millennium. Handguns don't feel "noble" even if they might be.

 

The Right of Revolution does feel noble and it seems as important today as it was then. It just seems like the more important concept just gets forgotten or pushed to the side.

 

The U.S. Constitution is a document created by humans that is a shining accomplishment, that is a milestone of human progress, that is a guiding light for the world. The "Magna Carta" was a similar step on that road and we don't care that it happened in human history in some particular place called England. What mattered is that it put limits on the "Divine Right of Kings" - The U.S. Constitution is another step in that human progress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

 

The "Right of Revolution" is a vital issue in Syria for example, and the U.S. of all countries should be actively supporting that as long as the motivation is never economic or self-serving. We are human. One day we will live on Mars and maybe there will be a "Solar System Constitution" and the U.S. Constitution can be the noble model for that if it isn't interpreted to death in the worst possible light.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+DevTech    849
13 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

....Unfortunately, that quote is almost definitely bogus.  A shame, because its a good one.

Its a very popular misquote from gun advocates, but is widely considered to be completely fabricated.

Either way handguns are not required for that sentiment (or practical civil defense reality) to hold true.

 

From a logical point of view it is unlikely an experienced military commander would have said that since invading North America from Japan would have taken a level of effort similar to the landing on D-Day which is many orders of magnitude more ambitious than a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.