The Modern Sporting Rifle! Doesn't fool the NY Times

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

I believe that I may see the day that private gun ownership goes away... Or at the least being very restrictive that most people give up their guns.

Perhaps, but I think there will be a LOT of creeping incrementalism taking place before that happens.

Also—given the ongoing divisiveness at the federal level—I don't think we'll see a UK or Aussie type apocalyptic confiscation scenario originating at the federal level anytime within the foreseeable future, although I think UBC's will probably be a done deal within the decade. A more likely scenario is the one that's already happening—increasingly severe restrictions in certain states.

[44 AMP]

If one reads the 2nd amendment carefully, there is no mention of protecting the right to own firearms for sporting purposes, only for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Thus no consideration at all for "Modern Sporting Rifles".......

That is correct. But read the other amendments just as carefully. There is no mention of a number of "rights".

This is covered in what is probably the most ignored amendment, the 10th.

So, just because a specific right is not enumerated in the Constitution DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST!

PERHAPS sporting arms are not covered under the 2nd amendment (although I personally think that the right to bear (any) arms for any legal purpose is covered) but even if you think not, there are other sections of the Constitution that would cover them. Pursuit of happiness, anyone??? (just for one possible example)

[rickyrick]

It would make me extremely to buy an Indy car and jump it over traffic on the I5 bridge....

But I couldn't do it without extensive government permits.

The Indy car is a sporting implement and I couldn't bring it into public very easily

All kinds of sports and other activities not guaranteed are inhibited by government. You can't even hunt without a book full of regulations

[Pond, James Pond]

Reading all this still pushes me to think as I did before: people have consistently owned firearms for the same reasons: to shoot things. Either to feed oneself or defend oneself. I don't need to iterate the means by which they do either.

Without a return to the issue of the semantics or philosophy of "purpose", I believe that is what guns are primarily for and have been since their inception. Regrettable though it is, we are a species that seems to require that sort of innovation as much as any other.

I think this use must be the prime reason why gun ownership must be protected. That people should have the option of having a means of self-preservation should they choose to. Be it preservation from unsolicited aggression or from hunger (including not being reliant on others for the provision of food if they choose not to be).

I enjoy shooting sports and arguably all of my ammo is dedicated to that, but only because I don't hunt at present and don't go looking for trouble. If trouble comes looking for me, sports shooting will be the furthest thing from my mind.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Right, and the idea that an enumerated liberty is subject to a "needs" test means it existence has to be justified. Nope. Nobody expects that of our rights to speech or fair assembly. It's disingenuous for people to say that regarding the RKBA.

Thinking about this - isn't the MSR mantra trying to express a 'needs' test. I need this particular type of gun to amuse myself. Thus, don't ban it.

[rickyrick]

Thinking about this - isn't the MSR mantra trying to express a 'needs' test. I need this particular type of gun to amuse myself. Thus, don't ban it.

That's a bingo for me.
And once it becomes a toy, in this instance a particularly dangerous toy, it's open to heavy regulation.

I think the MSR title is a submission, and admitting you are wrong. You are seeking approval.

It's like requesting permission from your parents.

[buck460XVR]

I think the MSR title is a submission, and admitting you are wrong. You are seeking approval.

It's like requesting permission from your parents.

Again, for those too young to remember or memories too short, the term "modern sporting rifle" was coined by gun rag writers, firearm manufacturers and others to validate to other gun owners the use of EBRs for hunting.....not to validate the use of it to anti's. There are even some semi-auto shotguns that are considered by the NSSF as MSRs.

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While you may have a point, that the NSSF was trying the soothe the ruffled feathers of the Zumbo contingent, that wasn't the only purpose. The Guns and Ammo piece I referred to was clearly trying to make a semi a nice gun.

I hate to say it but the VPC report referenced by the Times, clearly indicates that the guns are advertised for their weapons potential and not sporting potential.

Even trying to soothe the Zumbo feathers is an attempt to make them a nice gun for a gun world subset that bought into their being too dangerous to own.

I'm repeating myself to argue that an emphasis on the MSR is a mistake for the RKBA. It is an argument that can be easily turned (the choir doesn't see that). If you make a silly argument, it's well known that later arguments (even if valid) are ignored.

Joe Scarborough (a 'conservative) said: I don't need a 30 round clip of cop killer bullets to hunt deer with my son.

Full of stupid cliches - he had a point that there is not a compelling case for 30 round mags for deer hunting. Yes, they are useful for matches (which I do). AND - they are useful for SD and defense against tyranny. So if you go MSR - why not a mag ban? They are useful for nuts to shoot up the movies?

I take the position that 'rights' may seem natural but really they have to be justified for a society to embrace them. The MSR mantra negates the reason to have such guns as compared to their risks. The benefits of having them are on the weapons side of the equation.

The other rights in the BOR are there because they became part of the social-political context of the times. Some might think they are laws of nature or the Divine but given the set of rights, changes to them, etc. - you cannot ignore the social forces enabling or disabling their instantiation.

[Tom Servo]

isn't the MSR mantra trying to express a 'needs' test.

Yep, by bending over backwards to call them "sporting arms," we're proactively making excuses for the exercise of a right.

Rights don't need to be justified, and we fall into a trap by doing so.

[rickyrick]

Funny thing when I was young, I believed a lot differently than I do now.

I thought there was no good reason to own high capacity mags.
I felt AR rifles and similar were taboo.
I would have scorned a person that showed up to a hunt with an assault weapon.
I supported background checks and all the other "common sense" gun control proposals.

I was a recreational shooter since I was a kid. Nothing serious, just leisurely target shooting. But I still believed in restrictions.
I even owned a mini14 at age 18, but only used the 5 round mag... That's all I felt was needed
Sometime in my 30s I learned exactly why the second amendment existed and it changed my view on the subject....

I really don't care why and when the term MSR was coined, what matters to me is the purpose in which I first heard it used... My first exposure to the term was to sugar coat the image of the AR15 so it seems less dangerous.

Now imagine asking your parents for permission to get a car for college. You need it to get to school and work, possibly for emergency travel back home. How far would you get if your only reasoning is "It sure is a fun to play around with it"?

[Stevie-Ray]

However, we are now in the 21st century, and "rational" people no longer believe that people with their personal arms can defeat a government who has tanks, jet planes and atomic weapons.

That's presupposing the military will follow orders to fire on civilians. Many high-ranking officers have stated unequivocally they will NOT do this, along with soldiers saying they will not follow the order if given. Many high-ranking officers are being let go over the last year or so, also, which is rather disconcerting. I'll stop there.

[Tom Servo]

Many high-ranking officers are being let go over the last year or so, also, which is rather disconcerting. I'll stop there.

If you're implying a link between the two factors, the allegation demands some serious proof.

That said, the nature and role of our military in this respect is worth addressing. The founders of this country were highly educated men. They read Locke, Blackstone, and Gibbon. They took those lessons to heart.

Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had a special place for several. It was first widely published between 1775 and 1776. It was a "bestseller." Jefferson was known to walk around with a copy.

Gibbon was the first author to gather up every source we had at the time and provide a consistent analysis. Many concepts of our government, such as separation of powers and a strictly-defined set of responsibilities for the chief executive, came from the lessons in his work.

One of the factors for which he blamed the fall of Rome was the Praetorian Guard. They started as a sort of military police, then evolved to become the personal guards for emperors. Over time, they became a domestic military operating on Roman soil--something that was never supposed to happen.

Some emperors used them as enforcers and secret police. Their political influence ballooned over the years. In time, they'd make kings and kill kings who didn't meet their approval. More to the point, they weren't mere "citizens." In fact, "citizen" was what they were called when they were disgraced or relieved of duties.

Throughout history, we'd see this happen in other nations, on a smaller scale. The result was always the same: corruption and rule by a standing army. The founders didn't want that to happen here, which is why we've got provisions against it.

Furthermore, military service doesn't grant anyone a privileged role in society. Sure, we tend to feel some positive bias towards vets who run for political office or in a job interview, but that's not why they serve. Nobody goes into our military expecting to be rewarded with wealth or political influence.

As such, our soldiers are citizens. There's no insult in it, because they were never elites to begin with. It's hard to overstate how novel that is from a historical perspective.

It also explains why they're not inclined to blindly follow orders that are unconstitutional or unconscionable. There's simply no reward for betraying their oath, or the trust of their fellow citizens.

As such, would there ever really be a shooting war between the military and the citizenry like gun controllers think we're advocating? No. A Commander in Chief who gives unconstitutional orders would find himself without the support of the military.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It also explains why they're not inclined to blindly follow orders that are unconstitutional or unconscionable. There's simply no reward for betraying their oath, or the trust of their fellow citizens.

Other than the avoidance of a court martial, you mean?

I need to dig up the UCMJ on disobeying a direct order from a superior officer. When I served during the Vietnam "conflict" (it wasn't a war, the politicians kept telling us as we were busy ducking incoming), it was expressed as that we did not "have to" obey an unlawful order ... but God help you if you disobeyed and then tried to prove that an order -- any order -- was unlawful.

In recent years, I think I remember looking it up and finding that, in fact, refusing to obey an unlawful order is actually not optional, but mandatory. That puts things in a different light, but there's still the problem of being court martialed and having to show that the order you disobeyed was unlawful.

Looks like my earlier understanding was more correct. From Article 90 of the UCMJ:

Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer

Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

...

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.

(a) Lawfulness of the order.

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

It's all nicey-nice to say that soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders, but it's tough not to when the deck is stacked against the subordinates and the legal presumption is that all orders are lawful orders. Especially when "authorization may be based on ... custom of the service." That's not a very objective standard.

[44 AMP]

As such, would there ever really be a shooting war between the military and the citizenry like gun controllers think we're advocating? No. A Commander in Chief who gives unconstitutional orders would find himself without the support of the military.

A shooting "war" like the anti's think we fantasize about? I don't think that's likely. On the other hand, we have NUMEROUS examples of Commanders in Chief giving unconstitutional orders and the military obeying completely. Unless/until the orders are SO blatently wrong (such as machinegunning prisoners en masse) things will likely continue the way they have been.

No, soldiers do not have to obey an unlawful order, nor do civilians have to obey an unconstitutional law. BUT, UNTIL the proper court agrees with you, you are in jail, or the stockade, if you disobey.

Also note that the US (leading the other Allies) did not accept "I was only following orders" as a valid defense at Nuremburg.

[mehavey]

willfully disobeys a lawful command....

And there, my friend, is where the oath to the Constitution comes in -- since an order which is contrary to law is (ispo facto) unlawful.

A lawful order has the force of law to force compliance, but must be authorized, sanctioned, and not itself forbidden by law. Fail any one of those three tests and the bottom drops out.

Now I grant you that it may take a court to expose the the illegal act which the officer/NCO order was trying to require of the soldier but that's why god created the oath.

"Shoot that civilian" is an easy one.
"Don't tell congress" is a bit messier.
"Fire on your own position since the men won't advance...." well...., see Paths of Glory for some provoking thought on both sides.

[buck460XVR]

That's presupposing the military will follow orders to fire on civilians. Many high-ranking officers have stated unequivocally they will NOT do this, along with soldiers saying they will not follow the order if given.

....apparently folks here are either too young to remember Kent State, or just have forgotten. Military firing upon unarmed citizens.

Still, I'm still of the mindset that folks are making way to much of the MSR moniker.

I'm repeating myself to argue that an emphasis on the MSR is a mistake for the RKBA.

I too believe it's a mistake, on both sides to even think that a moniker is what determines what is safe or unsafe. I remember the days when the moniker "muscle car" had a negative connotation to some folks while it was a badge of honor to others. Funny, it wasn't the cars that were the threat, but the driver behind the wheel. Similar to the MSR, it ain't the gun, but the loose screw attached to the trigger.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are drifting a touch in the thread. I brought up the issue as the NYTimes brought it up and it was interesting.

As far as Kent State (a thread drift, I grant you) - I met members of a NG unit that was composed of college kids (as compared to the one at Kent State). Their LT was all hot and bothered to go shoot those commie students. The student composed unit suggest to the LT, that if such an order was given, he might be in danger of taking a round.

The role of a citizen army in imposing tyranny is not to be taken for granted but that's not what the thread is about.

[rickyrick]

I think everyone likes to think in terms of noble and just... However, that's not how the world or humanity is.

If an unconstitutional order is given, soldiers and police will carry it out. A few may stand up and say no, but the order will be carried out.

People do immoral things all of the time, just because their boss told them too.

Nothing has changed about human nature. If the order is given to subdue a group of civilians, it will happen. Public outcry may cause a political leader to stand up and stop the act; most likely it will be over by then.

[rickyrick]

It's not the right to keep and bear sporting goods

[Pond, James Pond]

If an unconstitutional order is given, soldiers and police will carry it out. A few may stand up and say no, but the order will be carried out.

Wasn't there a shooting at a student anti-war rally back in the late 60's/early 70's? It was either police or soldiers who fired on the crowd. I believe the crowd were unarmed. Can't remember the place nor exactly when.

[buck460XVR]

Wasn't there a shooting at a student anti-war rally back in the late 60's/early 70's? It was either police or soldiers who fired on the crowd. I believe the crowd were unarmed. Can't remember the place nor exactly when.

Coupla threads back....

....apparently folks here are either too young to remember Kent State, or just have forgotten. Military firing upon unarmed citizens

But be warned it has been touted as drifting off topic. Things were obviously different back then and gun ownership and the use of firearms against the general public had a much different stigma. This was also during the time of the bombing at UW-Madison. What's also obvious is that the climate for firearms can and will change again. It goes back and forth with every mass shooting. Every-time a President get shot. Still, it's going to take more than a silly moniker for a platform to take away our 2nd Amendment rights, but as we have seen over the years, that a change in definition of it may remove and/or change part of it.