|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 19, 2009, 03:22 PM | #101 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right? Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||||||||
February 19, 2009, 03:35 PM | #102 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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? 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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
February 19, 2009, 03:57 PM | #103 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Glenn, if you don't mind, I would address these out of order.
Quote:
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:
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:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
February 19, 2009, 04:06 PM | #104 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"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. |
||
February 19, 2009, 04:06 PM | #105 | ||||||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
WildfolkshateitwhentheygetcaughtinwaslawAlaska ™ |
||||||
February 19, 2009, 04:16 PM | #106 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildthelawisthelawAlaska ™ |
|
February 19, 2009, 04:50 PM | #107 | |||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
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:
I am free to publicly offer my opinion of the exec at any time in any place. Is a service member? Quote:
I have not conflated correlation and causation, so your assessment of my statement is inaccurate. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||||||||
February 19, 2009, 05:12 PM | #108 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, you are not alleging, are you, that a person cannot contractually exchange a constituional "right" for a benefit? Quote:
Quote:
WildwemustallputthegunwoobieasideforthisthreeadAlaska ™ |
||||
February 19, 2009, 05:15 PM | #109 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildperhapsyouwishmetoexpoundAlaska ™ |
|
February 19, 2009, 05:19 PM | #110 |
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 |
February 19, 2009, 05:19 PM | #111 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
February 19, 2009, 05:22 PM | #112 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
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. |
February 19, 2009, 05:31 PM | #113 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||||
February 19, 2009, 05:53 PM | #114 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
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:
WildnorresortedtorepeatedadhominemsAlaska ™ |
||
February 19, 2009, 05:54 PM | #115 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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:
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 |
||
February 19, 2009, 06:30 PM | #116 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
I find a problem with a purely prudential argument against an explicit right. That is not an attack on you personally.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
February 19, 2009, 06:37 PM | #117 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
And perhaps you would care to comment on the brief historical background of Federal FA controls set forth above? WildtgraisedaninterestingpointbythewayAlaska ™ |
|
February 20, 2009, 04:29 AM | #118 |
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. |
February 20, 2009, 06:00 AM | #119 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2009
Location: Sturgis, South Dakota
Posts: 152
|
Quote:
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. ([color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] 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. |
|
February 20, 2009, 08:26 AM | #120 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
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:
Last edited by alloy; February 20, 2009 at 08:38 AM. |
||
February 20, 2009, 09:20 AM | #121 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
"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. |
||
February 20, 2009, 04:23 PM | #122 |
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. |
February 20, 2009, 04:28 PM | #123 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
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 ™ |
February 20, 2009, 05:03 PM | #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|