Three things that I suggest everyone here consider.

Whenever I come in here, there's three points of sloppy argument that always make me crazy.

1. "Assault rifles."

Under the actual dictionary definition of an assault rifle, these have been illegal without very strict federal licensing since 1934. The fact that you can go out and buy a semi-auto rifle that looks a lot like an M-16 or an AK-47 doesn't make it the real thing any more than an imitation Rolex is.

As far as banning military-knockoff rifles with large clips, the evidence is severely lacking that it would have a noteworthy effect on crime. Rifles of any kind are used in about 2% of crimes involving a gun, and 4% of homicides involving a gun. By far, most gun crimes use handguns, and the largest majority of these are simple revolvers. Contrary to the concern about mass shootings, the handful of shootings that have involved military knockoff weapons haven't killed more people than those involving handguns.

Handguns are by far the preferable weapon for anyone engaged in crime. The advantages of a rifle are range and power, both of which are wasted at the short ranges gun crimes typically take place at. Worse, a rifle is an awkward piece of equipment, unsuited to concealment.

Absent a total ban on handguns, which will certainly never happen, the only really effective defense against guns in the hands of dangerous people are rigorous background checks, and the prevention of stolen weapons. Banning certain scary looking guns because they look like military weapons is an ineffective feel good measure, no different from the people who support mandatory 10 year sentences for somebody caught with a few hits worth of crack. These sorts of laws give the appearence of doing something about crime without the burden of actually trying to fix the source problem.


2. The right to keep and bear arms.

I love the constitution as much as anybody, but this argument is more than a little silly. When it was written, "arms" referred to muzzle-loading single-shot muskets and pistols. Even a cartridge based rifle hadn't been invented yet, let alone reliable bolt-action or semi-automatic.

Yes, it was written with the idea of keeping the government in check. And back then, when you could achieve parity in firepower on an open field, it would have worked. But technology has sent that out the window now, unless we also alot to the citizenry anti-tank weapons, laser guided bombs, et al. As much as I'd love to have an M21 Tactical or Barrett M82 to play with, I'm not under the illusion that it would really protect me against tyranny. The Iraqis have plenty of guns, and we're still there.

The best and final argument against banning guns should be the same one used against banning anything: in a free country you don't need a reason for something to be legal, you need a powerfully overriding reason for it to be illegal.


3. Anecdotes.

Anecdotes and single examples culled out of a country of 300 million people are, to be frank, absolutely meaningless. Posting a story about somebody defending themselves with a gun is no more valid a piece of evidence than a story about a kid who accidently shot himself. Either one is a statistical astrisk in a country this size.

It's like child abduction. The media coverage plasters a few cases across the country, giving the impression that it's far more widespread than it actually is. What they never tell you though is that these are just a handful of cases, and virtually all child abductions in the United States are carried out by parents or other relatives.

So to with the gun anecdotes. You could have one incident of each type I mentioned, across the entire country, and it would still be trumpeted as proof. It's not: independent statistics are real proof. How many gun owners defend themselves against an actual criminal? How many accidental shootings? What percentages? When gotten from an aboveboard source, those sorts of statistics are valid measurements of the effects of gun ownership.

When it was written, "arms" referred to muzzle-loading single-shot muskets and pistols.

There is some dispute over whether a crew served weapon like a Cannon is covered under 'arms' but there were certainly semi-automatic weapons in use in 1791. The Austrian army used them. See: Girandoni Repeating Rifle. 20 round, semi-auto, compressed gas .50 caliber musket.

Some notable Americans were in posession of these around that time as well. That rifle was light-years ahead, hard to maintain, but the concept was clear. It just took powder-fired rifles about 50 years to catch up.

Armed ships were in use by private parties, so that would seemingly compare to a Tank to me, but maybe not. I'm not going to make an issue of it.


I agree on the other points, pistols are by far the most used weapon in committing murder. Roughly half.

The 2nd Amendment was written, IMO, to do two things.

1) Since national defense was handled by local militias, it protected those militias.

2) Less openly, some of the intent may have been to allow the common man a means to resist a possible future tyrannical government...though this is open to debate.

The first purpose does not apply in today's reality.

The second might at some point, but it's not a settled issue.


Overall, while I personally support the right to bear arms, I don't believe there's an ironclad 2nd Amendment right to do so.

On the other side, the National Guard is one of the descendants of the militias (other militias survive in some states). I note that a few years ago, the Air Force withdrew B-1 bombers from Air National Guards, even though (or more likely because) some of the ANG units were more-highly rated than were AF units. I asked at the time whether this could be construed as a violation of the Second Amendment. (And this is quite aside from whether or not one supports the concept of strategic bombers, which I tend not to.)

Not well-organized.

then from the meaning we have today as well.

It referred to a good functioning well maintained piece of equipment.

Not a legislated regulation.

but I will have to do some research on that point. There are a few possibilities:

1. Kept in good order. A nod to laws that required a male over a certain age have a working musket or rifle, a certain amount of powder and shot, etc.
2. Subject to a civilian authority.
3. That any standing army or militia must be regulated or kept in check by an armed people, so that said standing army or militia is not used to rule the people.

I imagine there are additional possiblities. Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend to hit the regional library and do some research. I've got a list of questions I need to answer for myself.

But I don't believe the term referred to legal restrictions.

Like a 'well-regulated' clock.

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

I think our current understanding of the phrase is not related to the original intent.

One could possibly find something concerning that in the Federalist Papers.

Seems like I did this back in High School, but I probably didn't put much effort into it.

"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"

Hamilton, January 9, 1788

Regulated was referring to demonstrable proficiency and discipline.

We could start a whole debate on those grounds as to who would qualify to own firearms.

I left the Marine Corps in 85' and own a 45 acp and an AR-15, even so I may not meet the grade as I have not demonstrated my abilities with them for the purpose of defending the common good in recent years.

Camp Perry is just down the road from Toledo, maybe I need to make it a point to visit and enter their competitions next year.

Thanks for digging that up.

As did I for taking your post at face value.

Something about how you clipped that out in mid sentence made me curious, and there it be. Lets try the whole thing, shall we?

------

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, or even a week, 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

--------

It gets even better. Next paragraph.

--------

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if 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. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

--------

Obviously Hamilton has called for the States to develop a system to ensure the citizens have the means to defend themselves against a foreign force in order to remove the need for a standing army through the use of a strong militia.

Since either - A)no State has been able, or - B) no State has been willing to produce a system to "Regulate" or ensure the development and maintenance of an irregular force independent of the central government, then the right falls back to the individuals to prepare on their own, short of a law to stop them from doing so. That would also imply the militia would be the determiner of who in the citizenry has or has not "acquire(d) the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

If there is no formal State organization of a militia, then that would mean anyone who likes could start their own, with the right to arm and train at their own discretion.

I'll be taking up collections to arm the "Ohio's Sons of Liberty" next Monday, I think we need to snatch up some of those old F-4 Phantoms from the bone yard and re-outfit them with Sidewinders, Sparrows the whole enchilada baby.

You never know when the central planners will for call another stand down, like on 9-11.

The phrase I quoted perfectly explains the concept of a "well regulated militia" as ratified in the 2nd amendment. THAT was the extent of the thread I was responding to, the "question" about the intent of the phrase that I answered - and correctly too, I might add. BTW, The quote was made AFTER the Constitution was written, but before it was ratified, and before the articles that became the Bill of Rights were conceived.

Now on to your other points:
1) "The Federalist" Papers were written by the likes of Jay & Madison, who just wanted the Constitution passed, in light of the oppositions argued by the Anti-federalists. But more typically they were written by the likes of Hamilton, who favored a stronger central govt, and stronger then even the Constitution would have established - he wanted MORE centralized power, not less.

2)"an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it" refers to a "well regulated militia" acquired through evolutions (training) just as he stated, but of a select group, instead of the existing state entities consisting of 'all males age 18-xx etc.' And "...defense of the State" does NOT mean 'the several States', but in this case "The United States".

3) "the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent" was in direct conflict with the constitution & THE Militia(s) of the Several States, which were well-established STATE entities at the time of the Constitution, and typically included all eligible male citizens of certain ages. The only thing new via the constitution would be the Congress coming up with the guidelines to arm, organize and discipline them, and more strict federal service.

Hamilton didn't like the idea of 'All males 18-45 etc. etc.", thought it too much of a burden on industry, etc. "the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable. He wanted the new government to form a new entity - a new FEDERAL select militia. Doesn't matter...

His idea of a federal select corps was rejected.


4)Once again it is important to realize the Militias already existed - in the colonies & common wealths for years and years, and under the Article Of Confederation. And they ALWAYS existed with some governmental mandate. The problem was, as the recent history showed, that as they existed they were not efficient enough, they were not well-regulated enough to be counted on to serve the roles the new Constitution mandated. So certain powers were taken from the States and given to the Congress to improve the militias. And why not? OUR freedoms, as the pre-amble describes, depended on them, and so they HAD to be "well regulated", they HAD to be armed, they were deemed "necessary".

5)As you mention, the entire scheme of the Militia system being continued in the United States, and the primary reason for the 2nd amendment which came later, was because an efficient militia was thought to be THE best security of a free State (again not one of the several states), better then a large standing army, which was the traditional force of a tyrannical ruler/govt.

6)The people here have decided a long time ago that a large standing army IS the best security for our free State, and that the constitutional Militia of the Several States would be replaced by the Militia of the United States - the National Guard. This new system is much in keeping with Hamilton's ideas - a select corp of highly trained ("well regulated") members, with more federal influence then state. Of course them serving overseas, and as reserves for the US military, does not allow them to "stand ready" to defend OUR liberty against 'the government-formed army of any magnitude' - that same large standing US army. And 'the people' have been relegated to the title of "unorganized militia" - certainly NOT well regulated.

7) State Militias still exist, typically as "State Defense Forces". Whether the right to form militias was from the people, or from the states, is debatable. If the power started with the people, it was surrendered to the States a long time ago, and since then much of that power has passed to the federal government. So no matter how it is debated, private individuals forming their own highly trained and well-armed militias with no governmental sanctioning is not taken too favorbaly.

Even worse, you sliced the sentence up to suit your needs apparently. Allow me the right to do that in a court of law and I could convict you of the Lindbergh kidnapping.

You are not taking the writings in their entirety and that allows them to be misinterpreted.

You also claim that people decided long ago that a large standing army was anything other than what the FF feared it to be? I must have missed those people marching in protest against the lack of troops in the street. But in my negligence of such a populist movement, can you point to the exact point in time when the legislators, you know the people who write the actual laws that make legal such things, sat down and voted to change that precedent?

Oh, that's right, they haven't voted for a permanent large standing army, they reauthorize it annually with a budget resolution, just like the old Constitution said they had to.

Those who don't take favorably to the rights of others will likewise be given no favor when they feel their rights are being taken from them. Keep that in mind.

And they must be taken in the context of not only what they say, but also who said it, when they said it, and why they said it. I did not 'minimize the intent' at all, not by referring to the ideas connected to our conversation...the ones in RESPONSE to YOUR comments and quotes, BTW. I also stated what I believe the intent was and why, and I quoted the important phrases to emphasis & clarify my opinions. Hamilton goes on and on, an entire paragraph to get across 1 idea (i.e nation-wide militia = bad). Do I really have to re-quote the entire paper plus the entire constitution to show his intent?

Anyway, please refer specifically to the points I got wrong or misinterpreted with regards to Fed #29, or the Militia and we can discuss it. I love to learn!

OK, you got me, the people have NOT voted for a large standing army, but they HAVE voted (time and again) for their representatives, those ones who do vote to authorize the budget as you say - time and again. So have I missed all those protests by the people over the last 100 or so years against our large military? Did I miss the protests against the Dick Act? Against the creation of a new federal Militia from broad cloth with The National Defense Act of 1916? Where were the protests against the people's lack of mandatory participation in our state Militias? The protests about the Guard serving overseas? Against The Warner Act? USC Title 10, Section 311?

No, we didn't miss them, because there weren't any. Constitutional or unconstitutional, the people have let things happen in this country, usually because they wanted them to happen. And especially if it means less responsibility for them, or gives an increased perception of security. Bottom line, the constitution and amendments can enumerate all kinds of things, but if the people decide they want something different, it will happen; it may be gradually, but it will come about.

"The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public" Madison to Jefferson

I have always assumed 'put in order' or 'properly equipped', which would be a direct reference to the Militia Act of 1792, one year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

Every citizen shall ... provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and he shall appear, so armed, accoutered, and provided when called out to exercise, or into service, except that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. And arms, ammunition, and accoutrements required ... shall be held the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions, or sales, for debt or for payment of taxes. commissioned officer ... shall be armed with a sword or hanger and spontoon.... <53>

If that interpretation is accurate, the intent was to equip the people with exactly the same leading technology military weaponry accessible to the military, with minimum amounts of ammo, etc. As devastatingly powerful to them, as an M4 or M14 is to us, today.

All as stipulated in the Constitution.

The Militia was NOT to be "well-regulated" by being "subject to civilian authority", nor "regulated or kept in check by an armed people". The Militia WAS the people, under State appointed officers, and under command of the President when in federal service.

It was to become well-regulated by training & discipline - originally according to Von Steuben's 'Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States' (the "Blue Book"), and by federal law(s) governing the people's actions when in Federal Service, their organization, and what arms they were to supply themselves (standardized eventually).

The Austrian Large Bore Airguns were amazing for their time...Thirty round capacity, .51 caliber, muzzle velocity of approximately 800 fps, effective to 150 yards. I wonder how such a weapon would be regulated today?

It was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 pounds (4.5 kg), which made it the same basic size and weight as other muskets of the time. It fired a .51 caliber ball<1> at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls. Contemporary regulations of 1788 required each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, to be equipped with three reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 20 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes. Equipment not carried attached to the rifle was held in a special leather knapsack. It was also required to keep the leather gaskets of the reservoir moist in order to maintain a good seal and prevent leakage. <2>

The air reservoir was in the club-shaped butt. With a full air reservoir, the Girandoni Air Rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 150 yards on a full load. The power declined as the air reservoir was emptied <3>.

History and Use

The Girandoni Air Rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. The advantages of a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report granted it initial acceptance, but it was eventually removed from service for several reasons. While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs themselves proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, and were always in short supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

And the weapon may have been used in America and carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Thus the five decade search for the Lewis airgun has a new chapter. New study of an actual Girandoni military repeating air rifle and continuing study, here in America by Ernst Cowan and Rick Keller, supplemented overseas by Colin Currie and Geoffrey Baker, plus further international study by Beeman, of the Girandoni system and related historical documents apparently has removed all of the objections to Carrick's claim (2002, 2003) that such a rifle was carried by Captains Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on their exploration trip to the Pacific Northwest during the years 1803 to 1806 and to Cowan and Keller's claim that they have identified the actual specimen.

This elusive arm was mentioned 39 times in the expedition journals (Moulton, 1986-2001), more than any other weapon on the trip, but was never described. It seemed to have disappeared in the last weeks of 1806 when it was sent in Box No. 2 of two boxes to be taken from St. Louis by a Lt. Peters<2>. The last direct record of it was found in a notice in the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia of the auction of the Isaiah Lukens estate on 4 January 1847. Item #95 was “1 large air gun made for and used by Messrs. Lewis and Clark in their exploring expeditions”. It was withdrawn from public sale at that auction. Almost surely, it went into the unheralded holdings of a private family, rather than a formal gun collection, and was handed down through four or five generations to the 20th century.
http://www.beemans.net/lewis-assault-rifle.htm



edited to add picture of Girandoni Air Rifle

Thanks, I've never seen those three issues explained so simply and accurately.

This stuff needs to be said. Guns are an emotional issue for some and simple, straight talk is what is needed to reach an informed opinion.

why clips with a capacity of over 10 rounds should not be banned outright? Because it wouldn't be about hunting or target shooting. Nor do I think it would be to strong an impingement on the second amendment. So other than arguing slippery slope, what have you got?

I can change mags in, literally, 2-3 seconds... pistol/rifle, it doesn't matter - it's easy.
A 10+ round mag ban isn't going to limit any death or destruction some psychopath can dole out only using 10 rounders.
How many mass murders were made capable by the existence of 30 round magazines?

So you're proposing to ban something with the net result of... no/insignificant benefits.
I think you'll find arguments to KEEP 30 round mags outnumber arguments to BAN them.

If some idiot is shooting off a pistol (or rifle) at people, I'd prefer that the idiot have to stop to reload -- there may be time to stop the slaughter. And 2 to 3 seconds on a firing range may not be the same as in a situation where people are likely to try to stop a shooter.

Nobody stopped him while he was reloading.

But let's assume for a second that we did that. No gun has a capacity greater than ten rounds. So? As I noted, the most popular handguns in crimes are revolvers which have no clip and a capacity of five or six shots. A ten round magazine still means someone could kill ten people before they even had to think about reloading.

When you come down to it, the ONLY reliable defense against gun violence is prevention. Trying to control what weapons are used is like trying to stop cigarette deaths by banning certain colors of butane lighters.

because police and the military esp. have them by the tons, because there are already 100s of thousands privately owned and readily available, because 'normal' criminals typically won't care if they are banned or not if THEY want them or have them already, and because the extra rounds could be the edge needed in a defense situation where lives are at stake (fast reloads are nice, but having 12 or 15 or 20 or 30 rounds instead of 10 is a real plus in a firefight).

Though an outright ban COULD have some effect on impulse mass-murders and the like.

Simple comparison to hold thirty rounds.

30 round capacity= one spring, one follower, one stamped case, one base plate.

10 round capacity= three springs, three follower, three stamped cases, three base plates.

Not to mention the added energy to manufacture the additional parts contributes to greenhouse gasses.

:evilgrin:

Why not a 5 round limit? What is the difference between 12 rounds and 10 rounds or 5 rounds; if a nut or a criminal has decided he wants to shoot you? It only takes one shot to spoil your day.

By the way, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x199662#199669

A 10-round limit could mean a death sentence.

"Yes, it was written with the idea of keeping the government in check. And back then, when you could achieve parity in firepower on an open field, it would have worked. But technology has sent that out the window now, unless we also alot to the citizenry anti-tank weapons, laser guided bombs, et al. As much as I'd love to have an M21 Tactical or Barrett M82 to play with, I'm not under the illusion that it would really protect me against tyranny. The Iraqis have plenty of guns, and we're still there."

You're woefully mistaken if you believe a significant percentage of our people in uniform would comply with orders to bomb and shell cities or otherwise murder innocent Americans wholesale. You are correct that armed civilians could not stand against the full force of the American military but you can't believe that's the way it would go down do you? For whatever reason, right or wrong, the populace is not inclined to support an indefinite military action in Iraq. None but the most ardent totalitarians would support such in this country for even a little while. You don't have to defeat the military by force of arms. All that's really required is to make the political price of tyranny too high.

For that matter, I don't really believe that there would be a significant use of force on American soil unless it was almost unanimously agreed by the public to be absolutely necessary, and maybe not even then. We're not in the position that Britain was in when were made our move for independence: use of force here would be unquestionably against our own people instead of "those ungrateful foppish colonists over there."

What I am saying is that the military picture today isn't the same as it was even a hundred years ago: putting together an organized force capable of resisting the US military is impractical. There's plenty of reasons to be armed, but envisioning a scenario where one needs to mount a guerilla war until public opinion swings your way is kind of like planning for a global nuclear war: unlikely in the extreme these days.

1. "Assault rifles."

Under the actual dictionary definition of an assault rifle, these have been illegal without very strict federal licensing since 1934. The fact that you can go out and buy a semi-auto rifle that looks a lot like an M-16 or an AK-47 doesn't make it the real thing any more than an imitation Rolex is.

As I have said before, the semantic battle about what is an assault rifle and what is not has been lost. The term has been co-opted to mean any civilian copy of a military rifle. To 90%+ of Americans, if it looks like an M16 or an AK-47, it's an assault weapon. This fight has been lost.

Moreover, I don't see it as a fight that needs to be won in any case. Such weapons do exactly what they are supposed to do - put military-grade small arms in the hands of the civilian population. There is no reason to shirk from this or try to find a kinder, gentler term for such small arms.

As far as banning military-knockoff rifles with large clips, the evidence is severely lacking that it would have a noteworthy effect on crime. Rifles of any kind are used in about 2% of crimes involving a gun, and 4% of homicides involving a gun. By far, most gun crimes use handguns, and the largest majority of these are simple revolvers. Contrary to the concern about mass shootings, the handful of shootings that have involved military knockoff weapons haven't killed more people than those involving handguns.

Handguns are by far the preferable weapon for anyone engaged in crime. The advantages of a rifle are range and power, both of which are wasted at the short ranges gun crimes typically take place at. Worse, a rifle is an awkward piece of equipment, unsuited to concealment.

Absent a total ban on handguns, which will certainly never happen, the only really effective defense against guns in the hands of dangerous people are rigorous background checks, and the prevention of stolen weapons. Banning certain scary looking guns because they look like military weapons is an ineffective feel good measure, no different from the people who support mandatory 10 year sentences for somebody caught with a few hits worth of crack. These sorts of laws give the appearence of doing something about crime without the burden of actually trying to fix the source problem.

Agreed.

I love the constitution as much as anybody, but this argument is more than a little silly. When it was written, "arms" referred to muzzle-loading single-shot muskets and pistols. Even a cartridge based rifle hadn't been invented yet, let alone reliable bolt-action or semi-automatic.

Yes, it was written with the idea of keeping the government in check. And back then, when you could achieve parity in firepower on an open field, it would have worked. But technology has sent that out the window now, unless we also alot to the citizenry anti-tank weapons, laser guided bombs, et al. As much as I'd love to have an M21 Tactical or Barrett M82 to play with, I'm not under the illusion that it would really protect me against tyranny. The Iraqis have plenty of guns, and we're still there.

The intent of the founders is clear: the people should be armed so as to be able to counter federal tyranny through force of arms if necessary. Direct, toe-to-toe open field battles are not the only means of armed resistance, and guerrilla warfare was even used in the American Revolutionary War. Are other weapons going to be required to fight a modern military force? Of course. But would you rather start out with at least having small arms, or nothing at all? I can tell you which one I'd choose.

Yes, we are still in Iraq, but for how much longer? I hope and suspect not much longer, and Iraq will go down in history as another Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Mogadishu.

Further, civil unrest on the home front has a significant advantage over civil unrest in foreign countries - it devastates the economic underpinnings of the government. As the DC snipers and the Mumbai terrorists demonstrated, relatively few people (less than 10) armed with small arms can wreak huge economic chaos in a region. Such chaos can have a huge impact on an economy and the resultant loss of tax revenue may be more devastating to an oppressive government than the actual assault. If this is what 10 people can do, imagine what 10 percent of 40 million American firearm owners could do.


Anecdotes and single examples culled out of a country of 300 million people are, to be frank, absolutely meaningless. Posting a story about somebody defending themselves with a gun is no more valid a piece of evidence than a story about a kid who accidently shot himself. Either one is a statistical astrisk in a country this size.

I don't think anyone here seriously thinks otherwise. Nonetheless, they 1) provide grist for the mill of conversation here and 2)Anecdotes DO refute the arguments of people who like to assert that some things aren't possible.

For example, we've had people here who insinuate that it's pointless to carry firearms because the criminal can get the drop on you and you can't resist. Anecdotes have shown that 1) criminals don't always get the drop on their victims and 2) even when they do sometimes people successfully resist anyway.

The issue of guns itself is, in my opinion, rather dead. Short of the congressional Dems trying to bring back the AWB--and I hope they don't--the issue of guns has slid out of the national consciousness, and what debate there is concerns mostly what it SHOULD be about, which is insuring that background checks work.

As I noted upthread, I do understand the scenario envisioned vis "tyranny," but I don't see it as terribly likely. There's good reasons to be armed, but I file the possibility of "resisting the government" only moderately higher than "alien invasion." (Though to be totally fair, I do have a moderately well developed resistence plan prepared in case of alien invasion.)

As proven by the Bush administration, you can quite adequately decrease liberty without using even one soldier on domestic soil. Any attempted power-grabber worth their salt would do it exactly that way.

Iraq is a beautiful study in all the things that can go wrong with a waging a war of occupation. Guns play a part there, but the biggest lesson to be learned is this: as long as the populace is willing to resist, even if they don't have the means, occupying armies lose. Cell phones and storehouse-looted chemicals become roadside bombs.

anecdotes can be helpful by way of thinking about what might happen when it comes to firearms use and self defense. They seem silly, ghoulish, and unnecessary, especially to those who don't own firearms, but if you are going to have one, you have to think about what you will do if you have to use it. People who buy a gun, then put it in a drawer and believe that they can just jerk it out and wave it around for self defense are among the most irresponsible gun owners out there.

A forum like this especially, when you can present an idea and then there a ton of people who are willing to say, "yeah, but what about this..." is indispensable. I'm glad I found it.

My caution is mainly against assuming that because you can find an article about it, it must be statistically significant.

concealed cary assault rifle ?

Why Chuck, is that a hi cap mag in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

http://lonelymachines.org/images/posters/schumer. jpg

http://lonelymachines.org/

Democrats: they're not all out to get us.
January 25, 2009

New York Governor David Paterson has selected Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to take Hillary Clinton's place as New York Senator. The bad news? She's a Democrat.

The good news? She's a Democrat.

Gillibrand has earned an "A" rating from the NRA based on a voting record which shows unwavering support for the 2nd Amendment.

That's right: a pro-gun Senator representing New York. It may very well be that the North American Reagan Democrat isn't as extinct as we thought. ...

Not a huge fan of the current prez is that guy, either.


I'd suggest that some people should hearken to the wise words of the maxim about what happens when one lies down with dogs, but it might be too late.

Anecdotes and single examples culled out of a country of 300 million people are, to be frank, absolutely meaningless. Posting a story about somebody defending themselves with a gun is no more valid a piece of evidence than a story about a kid who accidently shot himself. Either one is a statistical astrisk in a country this size.


Very true, anecdotes are interesting to read and can be used to support your argument no matter which side of the gun issue you fall on.

However, anecdotes take on a whole new meaning when they involve you.

It's interesting to read anecdotes about the current recession we are in, but when it's your job that disappears, the recession suddenly becomes a depression.