The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 19, 2009, 03:22 PM   #101
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Quote:
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
Fair question, but you are not considering the context of the discussion. If you do so, the question need not be asked and is irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand.
If it is a fair question, you should be able to answer it. If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly. No question "needs to be asked", but you raise the issue of your own opinions when you offer them, so it is plainly relevant to the issue of your opinions.

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

Quote:
I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.

Thats begs the issue of what we are discussing.
No. It addresses your question, which was,

Quote:
Originally Posted by ken
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?
and posited "the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms " without any stated limitation.

Quote:
Quote:
Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. .
really? Military members receive training and a background check. Thier use of such arms is strictly controlled. They are not entitled to possess said arms except in course of their official duties. Therefore, unless civilians have the same restraints, that objection is principled
That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.

Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms.

Quote:
Quote:
Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.
LOL. Surely you are not contending that a belt fed is less lethal than a shotgun are you? Somehow I don't recall massed remington 870s on the Somme instead of Maxim 08s.

In point of fact, the increased lethality of the FA weapon makes an objection to same reasonable.
This contains a couple of conspicuous problems. First, shotguns are grossly lethal and used by use soldiers in WWI to the consternation of those against whom they were used. Second, it entirely misses the implicit premise of the proposed restriction, which is that automatic fire is unaimed or unaimable fire. Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms. Any bolt action 30-06 will leave the recipient just as dead, and a .50bmg rifle is more lethal than any of the above, yet is not particularly restricted.

Quote:
Quote:
But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.
Reductio ad absurdum
Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.

Quote:
Quote:
In that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.
I hereby set forth the new construct of Godwins Law, to be herein called WAs Rule of Gun Board Debate:

"As a gunboard politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Brady approaches one"

Reductio ad Brady. You lose.
Since the specific subforum rules discourage puerile bickering, I will allow others to give your conclusions about who loses due consideration. The histrionic reductio ad brady accusation misses the fact that the difference in your conclusion is noted, even though you share an analytical framework.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 03:35 PM   #102
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
Quote:
Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms
Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction? Or is it that of a FA vs. a shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle?

That leads again to the argument that WMDs are ok for the general public. If you say NO - then you are arguing the specifics of FA vs the others and doesn't that become a matter of risk analysis and empirical evidence as compared to some absolute principle?

As far as the Brady business - that was introduced as an argument accusing folks of arguing for some FA restrictions of sorta being Brady-ites. We see it all the time on lists - not a true believer, you are a BRADY. Let's let it pass for the moment for the theoretical. Are there limits?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 03:57 PM   #103
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Glenn, if you don't mind, I would address these out of order.

Quote:
As far as the Brady business - that was introduced as an argument accusing folks of arguing for some FA restrictions of sorta being Brady-ites. We see it all the time on lists - not a true believer, you are a BRADY. Let's let it pass for the moment for the theoretical.
My assertion isn't that any individual here is a brady supporter. It is that the brady analysis appears to be to determine who should have what according to their preferences, and argue those prefered restrictions as a basis for law. It is likely that most here would find Brady's conclusions wrong, but to use the same analysis to come to a different conclusion is an improvement of degree, not kind.

I confess that I don't always find Ken's style clear (as he may not find mine) but if the contention is that I've tried to end the discussion by calling him a Brady supporter, that is a strawman.

Quote:
Quote:
Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms
Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction? Or is it that of a FA vs. a shotgun or a 50 BMG rifle?
I was specifically addressing the latter. On the whole, a FA 10/22 might be less lethal than a 50bmg rifle. Tennesse Gentleman argues that FA is most useful for suppression fire; this does not indicate lethality.

The core problem of the lethality test when applied to firearms is that nearly all of them are lethal. Adopting a lethality test for banning or restriction legitimises a test that is used elsewhere to justify draconian restrictions.

Quote:
That leads again to the argument that WMDs are ok for the general public. If you say NO - then you are arguing the specifics of FA vs the others and doesn't that become a matter of risk analysis and empirical evidence as compared to some absolute principle?
Only if you assume that there is no pertinent different between a "WMD" and a firearm.

And just to be clear, I am not pressing anyone for absolutes. I am noting that a restriction not based on an articulated, reasonable and plausible principle may be literally unprincipled.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 04:06 PM   #104
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloy
i am confident that they meant weapons at least equal to the threat.
Might agree here. However, since I believe the threat to we civilians lie within the confines of current civilian criminal activity then the current arms currently in common use are suffcient to meet that threat and therefore pass the test you propose the 2A founders imagined. Invasion by foreign armies (virtually unlikely since we possess nuclear arms) would be opposed by our professional standing Army and resistance to tyranny opposed by the vote so I guess the NFA stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction?
Absolutely Glenn, unless we digress into the inane argument that a shovel is just as lethal as a .50 cal machinegun, lethality and dangerousness of the weapon is a reasonable basis for restriction. We routinely restrict and regulate things such as explosives and the 2A provides no cover for military arms IMO. The reason that the military uses these arms is because they are designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly or to attack other weapons systems such as tanks or aircraft.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 19, 2009 at 04:32 PM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 04:06 PM   #105
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly.
Au contraire, my personal opinion, assuming same is unsatisfactory to you, would form the basis for further ad hominem on your part. Thus it is irrelvant to the issue at hand, and diverts from critically thinking about the question.

Quote:
That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.
That does nothing more than spin the argument or evidence a lack of understanding of same. You raised the lack of merit of the comparison, now that that has been answered, you aren't happy with the result. And pray tell, what civil rights do service members lose?

Quote:
Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms.
I see...so you are the definer of the term "principled"? Ok are you using in the philosophic sense or the dictionary sense? And how does that effect your post hoc ergo hoc statement above.

Quote:
Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms.
Really? Inherent lethality of an item on a mass basis is not principled or reasonable within a constitutional framework where such restrictions would undoubtably pass muster? Are you familiar with the NFA?

Quote:
Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.
You confuse the rhetorical question with a postition. Further, assuming it is a position does not mean one should take it out of context in uno vis a vis looking at it in omnibus

Quote:
The histrionic reductio ad brady accusation
really? Histrionic?

WildfolkshateitwhentheygetcaughtinwaslawAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 04:16 PM   #106
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
but if the contention is that I've tried to end the discussion by calling him a Brady supporter, that is a strawman.
Please review the adjuncts to Godwins Law, I don't think WAs law has yet been so interpreted

WildthelawisthelawAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 04:50 PM   #107
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Quote:
If it is irrelevant to the issue, it would not erode your position to answer it directly.
Au contraire, my personal opinion, assuming same is unsatisfactory to you, would form the basis for further ad hominem on your part. Thus it is irrelvant to the issue at hand, and diverts from critically thinking about the question.
Because evading questions aids critical thinking, right?

You are putting a lot of effort into not answering a direct question about your own writing just because you regard the effect of stating your opinion with apprehension.

Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

Quote:
Quote:
That is a non sequitur and a category error. Service members do not retain any number of civil rights during their service. That a right is not extended to an active service member cannot describe the limit of a civilian's right.
That does nothing more than spin the argument or evidence a lack of understanding of same. You raised the lack of merit of the comparison, now that that has been answered, you aren't happy with the result. And pray tell, what civil rights do service members lose?
If you believe that meeting identification of your fallacy with "But you're spinning the argument" is not puerile bickering, then feel free to stick with that.

I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member?

Quote:
Quote:
Since the services also employ semi-automatic arms, it cannot be a principled objection to civilian possession of FA arms that they are used by the services, since that precise rationale also applies to semi-automatic arms.
I see...so you are the definer of the term "principled"? Ok are you using in the philosophic sense or the dictionary sense? And how does that effect your post hoc ergo hoc statement above.
I don't believe you "see". I have explained in the now italised text why that cannot be the principle behind a FA restriction.

I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.

Quote:
Quote:
Third, the concept of the lethality of a maxim isn't a principled or reasonable basis for restriction of FA arms.
Really? Inherent lethality of an item on a mass basis is not principled or reasonable within a constitutional framework where such restrictions would undoubtably pass muster? Are you familiar with the NFA?
Yes. I am also familiar with the difference between being able to pass a constitutional test and being the product of a plausible, reasonable principle.

Quote:
Quote:
Ken, that one was yours. If you don't wish to defend it, you've no obligation to. It is not obviously absurd to apply your test in a principled fashion. Since your implied test would restrict any arms, it is not a principled restriction of FA arms.
You confuse the rhetorical question with a postition.
No. Because the question was rhetorical, a reasonable reader can infer the position that inspires it. If that is not your position, feel free to indicate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNgent
Absolutely Glenn, unless we digress into the inane argument that a shovel is just as lethal as a .50 cal machinegun, lethality and dangerousness of the weapon is a reasonable basis for restriction.
Beyond noting that this leg of the conversation doesn't involve either, I make two observations. First, you may consider "lethality" to be a principle upon which a restriction should be based, but would have to admit that a bus or a 50bmg rifle are each likely more dangerous/lethal than a FA 10/22.

Second and more fundamentally, "lethality" and "dangerousness" are very closely related to "efficacy". That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:12 PM   #108
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
You are free to bicker all that you want. The word means what it means in the context of constitutional law and this discussion and my personal feelings again, have no bearing on the argument, one way or another.

Quote:
I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member?
LOL, how predicatable....OK, Yes. And would be subject to the same discipline that any employer would impose on an employee.

By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit?

Quote:
I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning does not require both


Quote:
Because the question was rhetorical, a reasonable reader can infer the position that inspires it.
Inference based on bald words requires reference to ones own prejudices. here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient. You thus will be unable to make the critical judgements necessary for this discussion. Thats OK, but it does not add to what we are attempting to accomplish here.

WildwemustallputthegunwoobieasideforthisthreeadAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:15 PM   #109
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.
Again post hoc ergo propter hoc, plus historically, sociologically, economically and politically incorrect (all in combination)

WildperhapsyouwishmetoexpoundAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:19 PM   #110
Konrad
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Posts: 33
As this conversation has evolved, I have expanded my thinking on my original subject and now I am amending my first post to include this new question. I include this to attempt to bring my point into focus.

What do we NEED Semi Auto for?

I asked myself this question and realized that I couldn't come up with a specific answer.

The answer is, we don't NEED it, we WANT it, yet we are allowed to have Semi Auto.This is important to note, because it speaks to the reason why we have the 2nd A.. If we can identify WHY we NEED SA, then the issue of "Are we entitled to easier FA access" becomes much easier.

As I opined in an earlier post, there are only so many reasons that could have existed in the minds of the founding fathers for inserting the 2nd A. Since we all have different theories about the context of the 2nd A. and why the FF inserted it into the US Const. the only way to gather consensus is to put all the issues into a group and agree that these issues are ALL the possible reasons why the 2nd A. was inserted.

Then once those reason are compiled, we need to ask "Do we need Semi Auto for this?"

First, lets look to the reasons for 2nd A. insertion:


1. Sporting/Hunting - This category includes target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting and similar.

Is Semi Auto NEEDED? The answer is "no". Manually cycled actions can be used (even preferred) for many target shooting events. Pump action shotguns are great for clay pigeons and revolvers can be used for anything requiring higher ROF.

2. Self defense from non-governmental aggressors (I.e. criminals) - Most would agree that a shotgun is a very effective self defense tool for the home, office or vehicle. Revolvers are still favored by many over semi autos for their reliability in a CCW situation. Thus, making a case for NEEDING a semi auto in the SD category is possible, but the argument is not strong.

As I see it, the best argument is the incredibly poor accuracy that afflicts most shooters in a real, life and death situation. Thus, for most citizens, having the ability to "Shoot till the target is hit" could provide some argument for the need for higher capacity semi autos. Still, some wheel guns can hold 8 rounds (Equivalent to some single stack Semi Autos).

3. Deterrence against governmental aggressors (Foreign or domestic). - This is of course the "Insurrectionist" theory. I.e. that the founding fathers intended the 2nd A. to be a last line of defense against an encroaching domestic government OR a compliment/supplement to the existing (small) standing army against a foreign force.

IF this (reason #3) was at least ONE of the reasons for 2nd A. insertion, then the argument for civilian ownership of Semi Auto becomes very strong.

Here is why this is so critically relevant; If the 3rd theory is accepted as being at least ONE of the reasons for 2nd A. insertion then the reason for civilian firearms ownership is to deter GOVERNMENT FORCES (Again, domestic or foreign).

To be an effective deterrent against government forces, the civilian force should have weapons that are capable of being a sufficient deterrent to government forces. Many government forces have full auto. If full auto is superior in any form to semi auto, then the government would only be deterred by civilians possessing full auto. (Hit rate aside, the ROF is superior to semis)

Hence, if the 3rd theory is correct, then full auto would be fully protected by the 2nd A.

If FA is fully protected by the 2nd A. then the strict limitations imposed upon its ownership might be unlawful. I.e. unconstitutional in the same way as the D.C. firearms regulations were deemed unlawful. (I.e. not officially prohibiting them, but making it so difficult that ownership was severely limited).

In addition, the issue of whether the FA guns are "More likely" to cause more or more severe collateral damage is not truly relevant. Not because its not important (No one wants collateral damage) but because, the issue isn't about collateral damage.

The issue is whether we as American Citizens are ENTITLED TO OWN FA in much the same way as we own Semi Auto guns now under the 2nd A. (I know, it is possible to own FA).

Hence, "More lethal, less lethal", or "trained or not trained", "accurate or less accurate" is as relevant to FA as it is to SA. In other words, its not relevant to legal civilian ownership.

(Ex. you walk into your local gun shop and ask to buy that new Mini 14 hanging on the wall. The gun shop does not ask you if you are trained to use a semi auto, given the increased ROF and the fact that it is capable of firing many rounds quickly.)

I mean this with ALL POSSIBLE RESPECT for all of you. You are all obviously quite intelligent and undoubtedly many of you have much more experience, wisdom and perhaps even knowledge than myself. That said, I am not afraid being proved wrong, but I am equally unafraid to stand firm when I am convinced I am correct.

For me this academic, not personal and I know you all probably feel the same way.

Best regards,

Konrad
Konrad is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:19 PM   #111
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Quote:
That the federal government did little to restrict the possession of the most effective individual weapons to citizens prior to the NFA should arouse the curiosity of those who wonder whether its principles are consistent with the history and text of the 2d Am.
Again post hoc ergo propter hoc, plus historically, sociologically, economically and politically incorrect (all in combination)

WildperhapsyouwishmetoexpoundAlaska ™
Please do.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:22 PM   #112
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Ken,

One of the issues I have seen brought before on the FA debate is that prior to the 1934 NFA there seemed to be no problem with FA/Military arms being owned by private citizens.

However, that begs the question of whether many if any civilians owned FA for reasons other than curiosity/hobbying reasons. I have no figures for this but I reason that the main if not sole users of FA weapons outside the police of military were criminals and that is why the NFA passed without much resistance. I don't think many civilians owned them due to 1) cost 2) unsuitability for hunting or sport 3) wasted ammo.

I know Thompson tried to market them to civilian farmers but it failed. Seems clear that these weapons were designed for military application and not civilian self-defense. Plus they had really only been available at all for about twenty or thirty years.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:31 PM   #113
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
The word means what it means in the context of constitutional law and this discussion and my personal feelings again, have no bearing on the argument, one way or another.
Except inasmuch as you offer them into the argument.

Quote:
By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit?
No, I am explaining to you that military restrictions on its personnel do not describe the limits of a civilian's constitutional rights.

Quote:
Quote:
I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning does not require both
Ken, indeed it does. That's why "ergo propter" is in there; that conflation is why it is a fallacy.

Quote:
here it is apparent that you personally view any restrictions whatsoever on any arms whatsoever as being constitutionally deficient.
That is incorrect.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:53 PM   #114
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
One of the issues I have seen brought before on the FA debate is that prior to the 1934 NFA there seemed to be no problem with FA/Military arms being owned by private citizens.

However, that begs the question of whether many if any civilians owned FA for reasons other than curiosity/hobbying reasons. I have no figures for this but I reason that the main if not sole users of FA weapons outside the police of military were criminals and that is why the NFA passed without much resistance. I don't think many civilians owned them due to 1) cost 2) unsuitability for hunting or sport 3) wasted ammo.

I know Thompson tried to market them to civilian farmers but it failed. Seems clear that these weapons were designed for military application and not civilian self-defense. Plus they had really only been available at all for about twenty or thirty years.
Good point TG, that was close to what I was going to expound. IIRC, subguns werent even in common existence till 1918 and by the time they were commercially offered, they immediately became "crime guns"....

Now couple economic distress with the evolution of the powers of the Fed Goverment and one can see why it took 20 years to address the problems of FA, done in a rather interesting way I may add.

Quote:
Except inasmuch as you offer them into the argument.
Then again, I'm not the one who violated WAs law

WildnorresortedtorepeatedadhominemsAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 05:54 PM   #115
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad
Deterrence against governmental aggressors (Foreign or domestic). - This is of course the "Insurrectionist" theory. I.e. that the founding fathers intended the 2nd A. to be a last line of defense against an encroaching domestic government OR a compliment/supplement to the existing (small) standing army against a foreign force.
Konrad, the second amendment has two parts. The militia was meant to be the defense against insurrection and foreign invasion. Heller determined that our right to personal self defense is not tied to militia service. Today, the US Military (not really envisioned by our founders but necessary in today's world) serves as the defender against foreign enemies while our police forces defend us from unlawful insurrection.

As I have stated before the Insurrectionist Theory cannot hold water against Article One Section Eight or Article Three Section Three of the COTUS. So, the use of the your reason number three would not make FA constitutionally protected against regulations like the NFA. Would any interpretation of the 2A make sense to say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government? That would be a suicide clause would it not?

Here is a quote:
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...cond+Amendment

Those free elections maintain our freedoms and not unorganized armed civilians.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 19, 2009 at 06:18 PM. Reason: spelling
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 06:30 PM   #116
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildnotabovewhiningandevasionAlaska
Then again, I'm not the one who violated WAs law

WildnorresortedtorepeatedadhominemsAlaska ™
Ken, at no time have I attacked you personally for the purpose of discrediting an argument you make. That would be an ad hominem argument.

I find a problem with a purely prudential argument against an explicit right. That is not an attack on you personally.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 06:37 PM   #117
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
That is not an attack on you personally.
responding further to that, while providing examples, would entail puerile bickering. The thread speaks for itself.

And perhaps you would care to comment on the brief historical background of Federal FA controls set forth above?

WildtgraisedaninterestingpointbythewayAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 04:29 AM   #118
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
When you consider who was in power when all these bans on full auto where put in place, FDR, and, considering the actions similar to what has just happened, with a Demo Congress, and, a Socialist leaning president, who seems to be taking lessons from Clinton and FDR, it perhaps proper to redress this issue.

Given the makeup, and the actions taken by the same group in the FDR and Clinton administrations, we are likely to see all kinds of attacks with one goal, take away the people's right to bear arms, and protect themselves, and, to protect Congress from the backlash of giving 800 Billion dollars to a bunch of their rich friends.

This is the first step to allow the government to take everything, which, in the current bank bail out is the real potential danger, government ownership of banks, property, etc.

One thing that is abundantly clear is we cannot protect ourselves from terrorist groups without being similarly armed. No police force can even protect us in such situations as the L.A. riots, how are they going to protect us against an organized terrorist group?

The absurd notion that a police force is capable of dealing with even the current gangs we have, armed as they are, and their sheer numbers is likewise absurd. What did the L.A. police and fire do when confronted with this situation?
They pulled out, and 'protected and served' their tails, right out of the fight.

I think the current huge run on firearms and ammunition is in anticipation of a situation much like the times the FA ban was put in place. In other words, a time when we lost incredible freedoms, and, the Constitution was erroded, as FDR expanded the Federal government to a point far beyond anything the founders imagined. We still suffer from those agencies, and policies, and, it will continue, and get worse.

I suspect, from the ammo and gun sales of record amounts, that I am not the only person that feels that that will happen, nor the only one that thinks firearms are the only way to protect ones self from such events.
Socrates is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 06:00 AM   #119
longrifles, Inc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2009
Location: Sturgis, South Dakota
Posts: 152
Quote:
Longrifles, I am not personally invested in the full-auto issue (I just do not find them interesting), but I have a more visceral reaction to taxing or prohibiting sound suppression units. Hearing loss is a real danger; shouldn't a safety nanny mandate that all new arms be sold with a safety lock AND suppressor?
So there's no misunderstanding. I have no interest in FA firearms beyond my job requirements here in "Gaghdad". Once I get home from this toilet my sincerest hopes are that I never have to work on one again. They are heavy, hot, smelly, oily, and loud. Kind of like the women that tend to lurk in every small town dive.

I find long legged bolt guns much more interesting.

Be that as it may there are those who are drawn to the idea of slinging as much lead as possible and God bless em for feeling that way. I am in no position to judge and I firmly believe it is an individual right that should not be regulated to the extent that it is.

If you insist on background checks ok fine. I can see where there is some benefit to the general public in doing so. However being at the mercy of the local sheriffs good nature is crap. A guy I work with here in Baghdad is dealing with that right now. Never committed a crime in his life yet the sheriff in his home town back in NC won't sign his papers for the short barreled M-4 that he's buying. He's trustworthy enough to carry a sec clearance here and guard the US Embassy in the most dangerous city on earth but he can't own an M-4 with a 10" barrel???

That my friends is bull****.

Here's the parts that really fry my ass:

Taxation
Banned sales of newly manufactured FA guns to the general public.
Being forced to relent to compliance inspections
Being a felon if a rifle is less than a specified length yet I can buy/own a pistol that will fit inside a belt buckle. (*** is up with that?)

The million dollar question:

What is the catalyst that will get us all to rally around the cause? What will drive us all to act and get these ridiculous laws reformed? I wish like hell I knew. Maybe if we all took Viagra right before we went to the range or something. I don't know, but I wish I did.

Six years in the Marines defending the Constitution. This is NOT what I had in mind when I did it.
longrifles, Inc is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 08:26 AM   #120
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Thus, the semiauto AR-ish bright line. Note this is accepting that 'rights' are subject to limitations. We accept such on other rights. The right to publish kiddie **** made with real kids is not accepted, etc. If you are absolutist on the word 'arms' - then Colt should sell anthrax sprayers at the gun show?

You have limits or you don't.
with regards to anthrax and/or wmd, no i dont believe civilians need access, but they arent what i consider firearms...even if they were propelled out of the barrel of a gun that is currently available. biological and or nuclear weapons are not what i consider firearms.
i also generally consider a rifle or shotgun to be adequate, i dont feel particularily threatened or fear an assault by multiple criminals with FA weapons. if i thought the threat was credible, i might change that. that is based on me and my surroundings, but...im not sure i can apply that to others in different circumstances, with different opinions on the matter.
do i have limits or not? i think a somewhat controlled access with recordkeeping, under the system in place currently that seems to be working, is my limit. but i think newly manufactured weapons would fit into the same system nicely.
firearms, not wmd or biological, is my limit.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; February 20, 2009 at 08:38 AM.
alloy is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 09:20 AM   #121
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
One thing that is abundantly clear is we cannot protect ourselves from terrorist groups without being similarly armed. No police force can even protect us in such situations as the L.A. riots, how are they going to protect us against an organized terrorist group?
Is that sort of threat realistic here in the USA? Are bands of terrorists and gangs launching wholesale attacks against law-abiding citizens backed by FA and rocket launchers/mortars? I do see that in Iraq and other third world countries where the rule of law is weak or non-existent, but here? Maybe I missed it on the news but if we say we need all military weapons necessary to counter a threat, shouldn't that threat be real or reasonably plausible and not just within the realm of improbable possibility? If not, shouldn't we be developing phasers for the coming martian invasion?

BTW, in the LA riot scenario you mention I would feel perfectly well-armed with any number of hunting rifles available to me without NFA restrictions. My understanding of looters and rioters and such is that once they hear and see the gunfire coming at them they skeedaddle! And it doesn't take a M2 to make that happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by longrifles, Inc
What is the catalyst that will get us all to rally around the cause? What will drive us all to act and get these ridiculous laws reformed?
Very good question and the ultimate answer to this debate. Maybe if what Socrates says comes true (bedlam in the streets) enough people will agitate for military weapons. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; February 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 04:23 PM   #122
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
I recently had to stay away from work, thanks to riots in Oakland. Seems a Bart cop got a black kid on the ground, at the Fruitvale Bart Station, and shot him in the back. The kid was asking at the time that the officer didn't tazer him. He died.

My work was in close proximity to both the areas with the riots, people running around burning stuff, and throwing rocks, destroying cars, and wrecking stores. Cops didn't catch them, only tried to contain.

If you check in another thread, the US Congress is now trying to ban imported firearms, with the excuse that we are the cause of the flow into Mexico.

The truth is, we now have an oligarchy, and, we are going to end up just like the British are now, without the right to bear arms.

It's clear that our Congress no longer cares about our security, in our house or otherwise.

As to organized violence, all you have to do is look across the border. Tijuana and the border towns are rampant with crime, directed at American tourists, robbing and murdering, and organized kidnapping. It might seem strange, but, the police ARE the problem there, since they are the armed robbers, and, they are using their position to help the influx of drugs and illegals into the US.
Socrates is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 04:28 PM   #123
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Socrates, I was going to respond to your posts, but since nothing you say is germane to the argument here, but is rather just a rehash of political invective, I must decline.

WildyouhavelimitsoryoudontisthequestionthatkeepsgettingavoidedAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 20, 2009, 05:03 PM   #124
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
Ok - we are going nowhere.

To summarize for your own cogitation:

1. Are there any limits on weapons ownership?
2. Are there realistic usages of FA for defense by civilians beyond TEOTWAWKI? Or are they just for fun?
3. If we can get them - what would be reasonable procedures, if you believe in procedures?
4. Can we discuss such in #3, without the good ol' invective from various forms and quarters of true belief?

Thus, I'm closing us down for being nonproductive. Good discussion for the most part and we covered the major serious points before we drifted.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17699 seconds with 7 queries