Select-fire

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

There is no way that a single State militia could throw off the federal government alone, even back in the 1860's.

That's not the point. Go back and look at what I posted about the fear of the Founding Fathers of a large standing army and the concern a tyrant could use one to control all the states and how ALL the State Militias would oppose such a move. That was not the reason the Civil War was fought. Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant (I am from the south too) and was not trying to take control of the nation regardless of what the south thought. Do you think that if ALL the states or even 90% of them opposed the Fed in 1860 when the standing army had about 16,000 men that would not have stopped any Federal move?

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

You say that States grouping their militias together to confront the federal government means they are forming armies and are therefore in violation of the Constitution and illegal.

It was in 1861. It was treason and rebellion and as the COTUS provided it was crushed. None of the conditions many of you talk about that would provide legitimacy for revolution was happening before the Civil War. But we all know what that war was REALLY about.

[Hkmp5sd]

So pretty much, now that we have a National Guard, fully armed and supplied by the Federal Government, supposedly under the command of the governor of the State, and any militia not formed by the State is illegal, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

So pretty much, now that we have a National Guard, fully armed and supplied by the Federal Government, supposedly under the command of the governor of the State, and any militia not formed by the State is illegal, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

Certainly not! First of all don't throw Heller away for Pete's Sake! We have an individual RKBA unconnected with service in the militia that the 2A protects. That is huge!

Second, depending on the particular state it might not be illegal to form an unauthorized paramilitary group but there is no 2A protection of such nor is it a militia. Also, your "membership" (if you aren't too old) in the unorganized militia gives you no special rights, duties or responsibilities.

[Hkmp5sd]

Not to worry. I was merely seeking to understand your position on the whole militia deal, some of which I do not agree with.

One thing I think is that the "people" whether legal or not, no longer possess that mindset required to take on the federal government. I don't even believe the American people have the mindset required to win a war on the scale of WWII.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

Not to worry. I was merely seeking to understand your position on the whole militia deal, some of which I do not agree with.

Whew! Yeah I was hoping you wouldn't think I believe the 2A is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd

One thing I think is that the "people" whether legal or not, no longer possess that mindset required to take on the federal government. I don't even believe the American people have the mindset required to win a war on the scale of WWII.

I hope that is not true politically. However, as to my son's generation, the Millenials, I am quite impressed with them especially in our armed forces. They are good!

[RDak]

TG: Thanks for your answers. Interesting.

Btw, I don't think you feel the 2nd Amendment is worthless at all.

You are more strict in a sense as to how the 2nd Amendment is "triggered" via the militia portion of the amendment than I am.

I do believe "well regulated" has a meaning and that might be where we disagree somewhat.

You seem to feel the well regulated militia can only be derived from State authorization. I'm not entirely convinced that that is the only way a well regulated militia can be formed.

Grassroots organizing can "grow" into a well regulated militia without the expressed consent of the State authorities, as long as it is eventually accepted by the State IMHO.

I do believe that a well regulated militia has to eventually have some sort of governmental involvement. Not sure it has to be started by the State though.

You do make a good point though when stating, in so many words, that the founding fathers might say: "RDak, you have to have some State involvement in order to form a well regulated militia, in the context we envisioned, when drafting the 2nd Amendment". (That is a good point on your part IMHO.)

(As to the NFA, $200 was alot of money for almost the entire period of 1934 through 1986 for many, many people. That is arguably a substantial reason for automatic weapons not being in common use either. "Either" being in reference to the automatic, hand-held weapon's short period of existence before the passing of the 1934 NFA Act. Not to mention the problem I assume many, many people had getting a permit approved by their sheriff. Oh well, this is subjective on my part.)

Anyway, thanks for answering my hypothetical. (I like talking about this stuff even if we don't entirely agree.)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by RDak

You are more strict in a sense as to how the 2nd Amendment is "triggered" via the militia portion of the amendment than I am.

Well, IMO the real beauty of our constitution and what really protects us from tyranny is the separation of powers. That was so brilliantly done and is I believe the real genius of the COTUS.

The State Militias have faded long ago and given way to a large standing army and the National Guard but look how much we depend on these separated powers! Heller is but one part of that benefit and that is why I feel participation in the political process is so important.

I will defend my freedoms with my vote and political activism when needed. I will defend myself from criminals with my gun. I think today that those who choose to face off against the government with guns will end up like the Branch Davidians or MOVE.

[maestro pistolero]

Branch Davidians, kids and all, were incinerated alive when the FBI accidentally ignited the compound. You might use a better example when touting the efficacy of the separation of powers.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Branch Davidians, kids and all, were incinerated alive when the FBI accidentally ignited the compound. You might use a better example when touting the efficacy of the separation of powers.

Not touting separation of powers with that example. Just the insanity of opposing by force the Federal Government and shooting Federal LEOs rather than using the courts and other legal means to redress grievances. BTW for what it's worth I lay that all on the head of David Koresh. But I don't want to get off track.

[maestro pistolero]

Not touting separation of powers with that example. But I don't want to get off track.

Understood. Koresh was certifiable, to be sure. But there were mistakes made that unnecessarily cost innocent lives. I'll leave it there.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just an update. Mr. Hamblen (mentioned in the OP) lost his appeal. See here http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...ral-court-says.

[OuTcAsT]

I think today that those who choose to face off against the government with guns will end up like the Branch Davidians

Do you mean murdered at the hands of "government" ?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Do you mean murdered at the hands of "government" ?

That, is another thread I won't get into here. Sorry.

[Yellowfin]

OK, here's a more plausible one for you that might make a little more sense to you, TG. Consider the case of Arizona where Mexican drug violence is a documented problem, and in other places, increasing in number these days, where Hispanic gang violence is also. There you do have a paramilitary level threat where individuals really could use all the firepower possible for defensive purposes, and waiting on the police and/or military to arrive isn't a survivable option for them. Nor is it the case that LE/.mil have that under control, they clearly don't. How about that case for select fire? Sure it isn't strictly necessary, but an extra measure that would suit the circumstances.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Yellowfin

How about that case for select fire?

Originally Posted by Yellowfin

Sure it isn't strictly necessary

I think you answer yourself if necessity is what you are talking about. I am not sure that some rancher having an M-16 or a rocket launcher or a 105 MM howitzer is not just as well and better served by an AR-15. I know we are talking about select fire but I know where this rabbit trail leads.

Finally, if such a real threat emerged as you seem to imply, do you really believe that the US govenrment would just sit there, do nothing and tel people to dial 911? I think not. A real paramiltary threat would be met with considerable military force I am certain so I don't see select fire providing much benefit.

Now, my personal opinion is that for civilian self defense the "rock and roll" option is both overrated and inappropriate.

[maestro pistolero]

I think the activity of the cartels and it's influence on urban life in the US is as big a national security threat to the US as any middle-eastern country. There are little Mexican towns along the border with populations under 20K that have 1600 people murdered each year. The average soldier in Iraq doesn't face odds like that. I don't know what percentage of violent crime in the US is attributable to drug trafficking, but the number is unlikely to be low.

There have been numerous incursions into the US that are well coordinated, and use superior firepower, including fully automatic weapons that have leaked out of Mexican and South American military regimes. The cartels are well-known to have RPGs, grenades, SFRLs, etc.

I am not saying that the cartel activity has elevated to the point of military action, but it's not far-off, and entirely conceivable.

I am also not suggesting that select-fire is some kind of panacea to ward off ruthless gang lords, but it is certainly not difficult to imagine an escalation of drug violence that would create a vast disparity in firepower that our founders sought to prevent.

But, in such a scenario we have challenges to meet long before the question of select-fire in private hands must be answered, such as how to train a citizenry to be willing and capable of first responder duties until professional forces could arrive. This means local governments allowing trained, screened citizen to carry as a ubiquitous presence, for the purposes of their own defense, especially along the border States who are most terrorized by the criminals.

The reason the cartels operate with such impunity, is partly because of corrupt intermingling with the Mexican government at all levels, and because the Mexican people have no right to keep and bear arms. The chance of a cartel operative being shot by an armed citizen at home in Mexico is near zero. In the US, it might be 30%.

We are so blessed to have enjoyed relative safety on US soil for much of our history. But we should lapse neither into paranoia, nor a false sense of security. We are as vulnerable as we allow ourselves to be, no more and no less.

Tyranny, and terrorism, come in many forms. In Mexico, along our borders, and in our inner cities, it takes the form of Mexican drug cartels. To permanently take select-fire off the table as an option for citizens trained to assist police, in whatever limited role, is a huge mistake and it is antithetical to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which in part, sought to prevent the disparity of force which always allows a tyrant to prevail.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Maestro,

I am a little confused by your post. I realize that in Mexico there is a horrendous lack of government protection for law-abiding citizens. I also realize that the very orgnizations (the army and the Mexican LEO establishment) are quite corrupt and in some cases preying on those they would protect. However, nothing within the realm of reality is happening here in the US and the above scenario in Mexico happening here is not believable.

Now you post:

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

There have been numerous incursions into the US that are well coordinated, and use superior firepower, including fully automatic weapons that have leaked out of Mexican and South American military regimes. The cartels are well-known to have RPGs, grenades, SFRLs, etc. I am not saying that the cartel activity has elevated to the point of military action, but it's not far-off, and entirely conceivable.

So are you saying that hordes of drug lord gangs will invade say, El Paso shooting up the city and trying to impose some type of tryanny on it's population and our military and LEO will just stand there or be overwhelmed by the criminals? I see you sort of jumping back and forth between Mexico and the US and there is a yawning gulf of reality between the two.

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

To permanently take select-fire off the table as an option for citizens trained to assist police, in whatever limited role, is a huge mistake and it is antithetical to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which in part, sought to prevent the disparity of force which always allows a tyrant to prevail.

Who says we are taking it off the table? The states may raise and arm a miltia if they so choose. Congress may not interfere. Further the states may arm said miltia with any type of military weapon they could buy or obtain (maybe not nukes or chem) if they so choose. However, YOU may not arm yourself without restriction like a state militia might based on your personal desire to own certain weapons without restriction. That is off the table by law I believe.

You know we could fabricate Red Dawn scenarios endlessly but the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of the citizen to defend themselves personally by the use of weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes.

[maestro pistolero]

So are you saying that hordes of drug lord gangs will invade say, El Paso shooting up the city and trying to impose some type of tryanny on it's population and our military and LEO will just stand there or be overwhelmed by the criminals? I see you sort of jumping back and forth between Mexico and the US and there is a yawning gulf of reality between the two.

No. I thought my post was pretty clear that we are nowhere that scenario, although there have been border incidents where organized groups have entered the US for specific targets. The, threat in my view is in the violence that the far reaching tendrils of the of the drug trade propagates.

I agree with most of your post. There are still States that either restrict or deny 2A rights to the degree that the disparity of force creates a dangerous situation for law abiding folks. I'm not talking specifically about select-fire here.

Who says we are taking it off the table? The states may raise and arm a miltia if they so choose. Congress may not interfere. Further the states may arm said miltia with any type of military weapon they could buy or obtain (maybe not nukes or chem) if they so choose.

But they don't. Training citizens ought to be an on-going process. Perhaps not same level of training that, say, National Guard, because the role is different. Professional forces are always preferable, but can't be everywhere, all the time like citizens. That to me is the beauty of the Militia. A ubiquitous, first responding presence is a formidable deterrent to crime and terror.

However, YOU may not arm yourself without restriction like a state militia might based on your personal desire to own certain weapons without restriction. That is off the table by law I believe.

I do too. But there must be SOME path to do it legally. The Second Amendment is about preserving the balance of power between good and evil. Bans only enable the evil and restrict the good.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

The, threat in my view is in the violence that the far reaching tendrils of the of the drug trade propagates.

And you think THAT violence requires full-auto? AN AR-15 or shotgun or good handgun won't stop that? Where is this stuff going on? In the barrio and what about that drug crime necessitates a civilian spraying full auto about?

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

But they don't. Training citizens ought to be an on-going process.

Have you wondered why that is that states don't really have trained functioning armed miltias anymore? I think it is because the common defense is not longer done by the militia and hasn't for 100 years. I think the common defense is done today by the military and LEOs. Personal defense is done by we citizens normally individually. The militia died for very practical reasons I think.

BTW as to being a "first responder form the militia", don't we have a lot of threads on here about the dangers of imposing ourselves into third party disputes and gun battles? Having the local "militiaman" intervene in some fracas with full auto no less might not be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

I do too. But there must be SOME path to do it legally.

There is. Have your state support it's miltia (good luck on that) or buy an FA and pay the tax if your state allows it and you are otherwise qualified. BTW restricted to me does not simply mean just a Brady Background Check. I am talking about the NFA and other state restritrictions and the lack thereof as unrestricted.

[maestro pistolero]

And you think THAT violence requires full-auto? AN AR-15 or shotgun or good handgun won't stop that?

Sure they would.

I'm not talking specifically about select-fire here.

I guess you missed that part.

Where is this stuff going on? In the barrio and what about that drug crime necessitates a civilian spraying full auto about?

Come on TG, you know I don't mean that.

Let me be candid here. It's not that I think FA is some kind of magic voodoo that sends your enemy scurrying in fear. I'm way more concerned about the public's overall diminishing knowledge or basic ability to defend themselves and community (again, until professionals arrive) than whether or not our rifles have a selector switch on them. If the the bright line were codified that every non-prohibited person could have a semi-auto AR15, AK, with full mag capacity, etc., but not FA, I could accept that, but I don't agree with it. There are elements in out society and government that would deny even that capability.

I am only saying that there needs to be some kind path to ownership and competence with military small arms that satisfies the need for public safety, national security, and the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. This is only an academic discussion until and unless a real disastrous emergency occurs that overwhelms the professional forces. You must think that scenario is impossible to maintain your position on this. Is that really the point at which we should begin training and equipping citizens to assist? God help us.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

needs to be some kind path to ownership to military small arms that satisfies the need for public safety, national security, and the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. This is only an academic discussion until and unless a real disastrous emergency occurs that overwhelms the professional forces. You must think that is impossible to maintain your position on this.

I guess that is true. In this day and age the sort of world here in the US where our society would break down to the state that normal citizens would need to own and be trained in the use of military small arms would be a living hell. At least based on what I have seen in places where that type of chaos exists. The militia served a great purpose in the 18th and early 19th century. But in the 21st I don't see it. Not with professional military and LEO. So, I guess I do not buy into any real scenario where we would need to form miltias for self defense outside or even inside government control. Just my opinion on that. The skeleton (thru the COTUS) is there to flesh one out if a state so desires but I do not believe we will ever see such and the longer time goes on the less I see the possibility.

[maestro pistolero]

Perhaps you are correct. We'll never have such a situation for the rest of history, and what could be better? But what's the harm in training a few fundamentals: Basic arms instruction, an awareness of command structure, when to assist, how not to interfere, how to identify and make yourself available to authorities, communication skills, etc.

Basic stuff for an emergency that we hope will never happen. I hope never to need my fire extinguisher, but I by-god know how to use it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

But what's the harm in training a few fundamentals: Basic arms instruction, an awareness of command structure, when to assist, how not to interfere, how to identify and make yourself available to authorities, communication skills, etc.

Nothing wrong with that!

[maestro pistolero]

Always a spirited discussion, TG! Thanks.

[USAFNoDak]

Though I agree that we are not anywhere close to a situation where we need to take up full auto or select fire arms to protect ourselves from an internal or external threat, I tend to look at this from a purely "politics vs. civil rights" perspective.

I personally don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between full auto and semiauto firearms, other than the mechanism that makes one pull the trigger repeatedly in the case of the semi auto. That is a tangent point. However, it has relevence to the subject of what arms the government can forbid us to have, and where that point falls on the line.

The fact that we have a virtual ban on select fire and full auto firearms led to us also having a ban on military style semi auto firearms at the national level. Thank God that law was put in place with a sunset clause and the liberal anti gun crowd couldn't get enough support to renew it for another 10 years or enact it full time with no sunset clause. There are several states which still have these bans in place; California for example.

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials. The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to, even though the USSC, in Heller, says that outright bans of "all" types of firearms in the home are unconstitutional. Still, the USSC doesn't say what types of firearms can be banned for home possession, or how many hurdles the government can put in place to make home possession of firearms so difficult as to "virtually" ban them.

Thus, for me, I look at the ban on full auto (at least those made or imported after 1986) as being a tool that the anti's can use in their march to banning as many firearms as is politically possible. The longer these types of bans stay in effect, the more the public accepts them as the norm, and the easier it is to move the ball down the field.

We've had some recent victories playing defense (Heller and the expiration of the AWB94), but we are still on defense in my opinion. Having a strong defense is good, but how long can we hold out without going on offense at least once in a while? That's my fear.