Every single court decision but two has supported my interpretation. Unless the little green men are pro-gun control, I think it might be that you have an agenda, and are pushing your modern definitions and grammar on an older usage, which is about as valid as saying a person born be c-section can't be President because he's not a natural born citizen.
And, of course, you shouldn't actually be allowed handguns & assault rifles, but rather 'a good musket or firelock' - note, only the one as well. Oh, and for National Guard volunteers in a cav regiment, where's your horse!
Alternatively, using anachronistic technicalities of a 200+ year old piece of legislation is moronic.
See, but though that argument works for escalation of arms size, it doesn't work for minimisation. Why does nobody protest laws against carrying flick-knives and such if they are pro-gun?
Many do, actually. Including myself. I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to carry a switchblade knife. Especially in a state where I can carry a compact handgun. And yes, in many states this is actually the case, and it's ludicrous.
Any other positions you'd like to assume that I, or many others, hold so that I may correct you?
Also, I think your argument also totally precludes the need for automatic weapons or certain types of ammunition, which tend to be a progun defence bugbear. The chances of you hitting innocent bystanders or rounds penetrating walls and hitting your neighbour are significantly increased if you have a 30-round full auto with armour piercing rounds, no?
I'd argue that a 30-round magazine in a full-auto rifle with armor-piercing rounds is unreasonable for self-defense. However, self-defense (as in, from criminals) isn't the only purpose to the second amendment, and for the other hypothetical purpose that's precisely the weapon you'd want.
But personally I can totally understand charging somebody with reckless endangerment if they actually popped off 15 or 20 rounds from an M4 at a burglar. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have owned one in the first place. Just means that they probably should have known better, preferably through some form of (government funded) training equivalent to, at the least, a written driver's exam.
"Q: Is a semi-automatic rifle the proper firearm for shooting a burglar?
A: Fuck no.
Q: Will you likely go to jail if you do so?
A: Yes."
mcdermott on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons). Also, if the intent is to allow for a militia that could effectively fight a tyrannical government, then it fails at doing that because no matter how many guys with rifles you have, if the government turns up with tanks and helicopters you're instantly screwed.
I'm taking the argument to this absurdity because I think it's equally silly to propose having fully automatic weapons in civilians hands using the "fighting the government" principal. Unless you have planes, helicopters, tanks and everything else, you're going to have a delightfully short and messy war. Having access to fully automatic weapons isn't going to actually help. Sure, it will help you keep rapists off your lawn pretty easily, but it also means that the rapists can arm themselves better as well. When you have fast firing weapons capable of suppressing areas in civilian hands, who REALLY wins here? Do you think defending your home because easier or harder with freely available automatic weapons? Are the police routinely going to carry mp5s? I would feel comfortable with my aim and ability to out-shoot someone armed with a bolt action rifle or your average semi-automatic pistol if I had one myself, but the risk of harm to myself in a firefight (or others) with automatic weapons just goes through the roof.
Edit: On reflection, I have to wonder if the term 'arms' does refer to field weapons also. Even the people who wrote that would realise someone would have a difficult time fighting anyone without their own field artillery and similar weapons, which if they were only allowed to be in government control would seemingly defeat the purpose.
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
I had a quad-.50 mounted in the bed of my F-150, but the recoil eventually caused the frame to buckle. The guys changing my oil at Wal-Mart had a grand time, and I was only cut off in traffic once. Once.
GungHo on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
I had a quad-.50 mounted in the bed of my F-150, but the recoil eventually caused the frame to buckle. The guys changing my oil at Wal-Mart had a grand time, and I was only cut off in traffic once. Once.
Every single court decision but two has supported my interpretation. Unless the little green men are pro-gun control, I think it might be that you have an agenda, and are pushing your modern definitions and grammar on an older usage, which is about as valid as saying a person born be c-section can't be President because he's not a natural born citizen.
SCOTUS caselaw repeatedly noted that the right of "the people" as stated in the second amendment refers to the right of the individual. They also define the militia by terms that would include both the organized and unorganized militias of the 1903 act.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons).
That is because 'field arms' was not the term used; field pieces or ordnance was used to refer to artillery (Which as mcdermott said, were crew weapons), while arms (with regard to equipment) referred to personal weapons.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons).
That is because 'field arms' was not the term used; field pieces or ordnance was used to refer to artillery (Which as mcdermott said, were crew weapons), while arms (with regard to equipment) referred to personal weapons.
But in saying that, we have armaments today that are infantry borne that are equally (moreso) powerful than a cannon back then. For example, an RPG launcher or LAW easily falls under personal arms (by this definition) for weaponry in modern standards.
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons).
That is because 'field arms' was not the term used; field pieces or ordnance was used to refer to artillery (Which as mcdermott said, were crew weapons), while arms (with regard to equipment) referred to personal weapons.
But in saying that, we have armaments today that are infantry borne that are equally (moreso) powerful than a cannon back then. For example, an RPG launcher or LAW easily falls under personal arms (by this definition) for weaponry in modern standards.
No, by modern standards, they are considered light weapons, not small arms. Since they fire explosive projectiles, anything similar during the period would have probably been viewed as a form of artillery.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons).
That is because 'field arms' was not the term used; field pieces or ordnance was used to refer to artillery (Which as mcdermott said, were crew weapons), while arms (with regard to equipment) referred to personal weapons.
But in saying that, we have armaments today that are infantry borne that are equally (moreso) powerful than a cannon back then. For example, an RPG launcher or LAW easily falls under personal arms (by this definition) for weaponry in modern standards.
No, by modern standards, they are considered light weapons, not small arms. Since they fire explosive projectiles, anything similar during the period would have probably been viewed as a form of artillery.
Yeah, but any of the arms we have now probably would have horrified the fuck out of them.
Fencingsax on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons).
That is because 'field arms' was not the term used; field pieces or ordnance was used to refer to artillery (Which as mcdermott said, were crew weapons), while arms (with regard to equipment) referred to personal weapons.
But in saying that, we have armaments today that are infantry borne that are equally (moreso) powerful than a cannon back then. For example, an RPG launcher or LAW easily falls under personal arms (by this definition) for weaponry in modern standards.
No, by modern standards, they are considered light weapons,
But they are still weapons that can be carried by infantry. I believe you're avoiding the point here, which is that these are weapons capable of being borne by a lone infantry solider and are not classical bulky (and hard to use for one person) weapons like cannons or similar. Also, I'm going to question the relevance of modern definitions towards the understanding of the term "arms" where such weapons did not exist at all. Is an assault rifle 'personal arms'? Is a GPMG? Is a .50 BMG? Is your average .50 cal sniper rifle (actually, this one probably wouldn't bother them much)? Is a minigun? An RPG is destructive, but how much more destructive is it in comparison with a modern BMG, especially considering that you can inflict a lot more carnage over time with a .50 cal machine gun than an RPG.
Again, this is going back to the original point that I do not see how fully automatic weapons should be covered for the same reason, unless we throw everything else in as well. Because if the point was to make sure you could overthrow the government (hence needing automatic weapons), you need a bit more than just that to make an effective anti-government militia in modern times.
Since they fire explosive projectiles, anything similar during the period would have probably been viewed as a form of artillery.
Infantry borne rockets I do not believe would have been described as artillery, as this was typically a term reserved for the larger machines like catapults, cannons, trebuchets and the like and their crew.
(It is worth noting that some historians call massed units of bowmen, such as those used as Agincourt as "artillery" as the primary effect of having arrows reign down on you is to disrupt infantry formations. I'm not quite sure I agree with this.)
Edit: We should be aware that the machine gun was developed well after the revolutionary war and the constitution was written. I would argue if we consider a weapon like an RPG 'artillery', then so too would they have seen the likes of the GPMG and assault rifle as artillery. It's important to bear in mind that once machine guns turned up, the kinds of wars that involved two armies standing around shooting one another with rifles went from being pretty horrible massacres to pure unrestricted blood baths. Nobody back in 1787 when they wrote this thing could have imagined how quickly warfare was going to advance in the next 100 years (the Gattling gun was developed in 1861), so I feel that when you try to move the point away by playing semantics with modern definitions about weapons we actually have a good understanding about is fairly irrelevant from any point being made. Either they intended that a militia should be a viable force vs. a [possibly] tyrannical government army or they didn't with what they wrote. If they didn't and they were merely securing the rights of people to bear small arms for use in things like hunting, protection and similar, then there is no logical reason why it should be applied to fully automatic weapons and assault rifles. Someone can learn how to use an assault rifle if they've fired other small arms before with a bit of an adjustment, which certainly would be within the spirit and meaning of what they intended (so that you had a population experienced with firearms, better able to quickly adjust to training as soldiers).
If it's supposed to protect people from their government by guaranteeing them the right to bear weaponry that would enable them to fight the government if required, then that does mean you would have to include modern weaponry into the defintion. Regardless of if you want to play semantics about calling a RPG launcher artillery, 'light weapons' or anything else, because you kinda need this stuff or you're going to be very dead.
Using them to gauge intent, however, is probably quite wise.
The intent is in the 2nd Amendment. People on the previous page were arguing details of the 1792 Militia Act. Not the same thing at all. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for a National Guard type organisation...which you already have in the National Guard.
Many do, actually. Including myself. I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to carry a switchblade knife. Especially in a state where I can carry a compact handgun. And yes, in many states this is actually the case, and it's ludicrous.
Any other positions you'd like to assume that I, or many others, hold so that I may correct you?
I wasn't actually assuming you held that position, was I...thus mentioning it as a general problem of progun logic rather than addressing you? Glad we both agree it's ludicrous then.
I'd argue that a 30-round magazine in a full-auto rifle with armor-piercing rounds is unreasonable for self-defense. However, self-defense (as in, from criminals) isn't the only purpose to the second amendment, and for the other hypothetical purpose that's precisely the weapon you'd want.
But personally I can totally understand charging somebody with reckless endangerment if they actually popped off 15 or 20 rounds from an M4 at a burglar. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have owned one in the first place. Just means that they probably should have known better, preferably through some form of (government funded) training equivalent to, at the least, a written driver's exam.
So...what's the non-selfdefence argument for owning the M4 and armour piercing rounds then? Why not just have a semi-automatic rifle? Why not just have normal rounds? What's the rationale that means you need the military-grade kit?
Just so you know, I'm intentionally trying to avoid directly addressing the 'olol militia' answer that I hope isn't coming, because as far as I'm concerned: 1. The idea of any militia ever being necessary in the defence of the US mainland (er, have you folks not noticed the big oceans on either side of your country) without a wholesale implosion of US society and your not-inconsiderably-sized regular military is laughable, and 2. The idea that they would be remotely effective against a modern military (ie your own) without the various arms that you have already excluded (ie explosives, RPGs) is similarly absurd - look at how insurgents fight in Iraq; small arms are used almost exclusively in a suppression role, the real damage comes from reworked explosives & old arty / AT arms. In short - if you are serious about this milita thing, then you should be arguing for rights to many more weapons than you are.
The private-gun-owners-as-militia argument is so patently anachronistic that I really don't know how else to put it. Actually, yes I do - it is as absurd as claiming that I should be spending every Sunday afternoon practicing with my longbow on the village green, just because there is still a medieval law on the books in England which demands it. True story.
(It is worth noting that some historians call massed units of bowmen, such as those used as Agincourt as "artillery" as the primary effect of having arrows reign down on you is to disrupt infantry formations. I'm not quite sure I agree with this.)
If we're going to say that the original amendment supposedly should allow for the carrying of firearms as powerful as fully automatic assault rifle, for purposes of a militia even if you have such weapons you're still screwed. The governmental army has F-16s, M1 abrams tanks etc. Should people be allowed to have their own SAM sites in the backyard, a Bradley in the garage and perhaps pack a few LAWs under the gnome in the front yard just in case?
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons).
That is because 'field arms' was not the term used; field pieces or ordnance was used to refer to artillery (Which as mcdermott said, were crew weapons), while arms (with regard to equipment) referred to personal weapons.
But in saying that, we have armaments today that are infantry borne that are equally (moreso) powerful than a cannon back then. For example, an RPG launcher or LAW easily falls under personal arms (by this definition) for weaponry in modern standards.
No, by modern standards, they are considered light weapons,
But they are still weapons that can be carried by infantry. I believe you're avoiding the point here, which is that these are weapons capable of being borne by a lone infantry solider and are not classical bulky (and hard to use for one person) weapons like cannons or similar. Also, I'm going to question the relevance of modern definitions towards the understanding of the term "arms" where such weapons did not exist at all. Is an assault rifle 'personal arms'? Is a GPMG? Is a .50 BMG? Is your average .50 cal sniper rifle (actually, this one probably wouldn't bother them much)? Is a minigun? An RPG is destructive, but how much more destructive is it in comparison with a modern BMG, especially considering that you can inflict a lot more carnage over time with a .50 cal machine gun than an RPG.
Again, this is going back to the original point that I do not see how fully automatic weapons should be covered for the same reason, unless we throw everything else in as well. Because if the point was to make sure you could overthrow the government (hence needing automatic weapons), you need a bit more than just that to make an effective anti-government militia in modern times.
Anti-federal government militia. The states have large enough supplies of heavier weapons and ordnance,
that a state militia could probably do a number on the federal military. Civilian weapons might not be as effective as military weapons, but unless it turns into a state vs state conflict, the state guard backed up by a large civilian-armed militia is still going to have a fair chance of being more trouble than it is worth for the standing army (in all honesty, I don't think that the military could take the California state guard backed by its unorganized militia, especially if the National Guard came in on the side of the state).
Since they fire explosive projectiles, anything similar during the period would have probably been viewed as a form of artillery.
Infantry borne rockets I do not believe would have been described as artillery, as this was typically a term reserved for the larger machines like catapults, cannons, trebuchets and the like and their crew.
Rocket artillery began as a man portable weapon, basically a glorified bottle rocket with a launching sled.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
The idea that they would be remotely effective against a modern military (ie your own) without the various arms that you have already excluded (ie explosives, RPGs) is similarly absurd - look at how insurgents fight in Iraq; small arms are used almost exclusively in a suppression role, the real damage comes from reworked explosives & old arty / AT arms. In short - if you are serious about this milita thing, then you should be arguing for rights to many more weapons than you are
It's worth noting that the Insurgency has almost no ability to actually fight US marines in an upfront conflict, especially at night. The equipment, training and weaponry of the US military is far superior and IIRC, most engagements where the insurgents actually try and fight US marines are one-sided massacres. Hence the bombings and everything else.
This is why I find it a confusing argument that people need automatic weapons. You don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself, you don't need an automatic weapon to go deer hunting and the only reason I can think of for needing one is to fight the US army. But then, the Insurgents have AK-47s and that's an automatic weapon, yet that definitely isn't enough.
So clearly you need the other bits as well, like anti-tank weapons for that M1 abrams that is going to roll over your garden gnomes and generally oppress you. Or a .50 caliber machine gun for suppressing the US troops who are similarly using them against your hodge-podge armed militia. Again, this is the problem of trying to think about how people with:
No idea what a tank is
Haven't a clue what aircraft, helicopters, nuclear bombs and similar mass destructive weapons are
Wouldn't believe the firepower of a naval ship like a cruiser or destroyer (with its array of missiles etc)
Write something a long time ago where none of these exist in terms that make perfect sense to them, then have people try to apply it in modern times. There is something about reading through all of this debate that I just don't get frankly. It's coming down to more and more fun with definitions and less thinking about things logically. If you think that it's supposed to allow you to protect yourself from your government by arming yourself, I really have to question your sanity if you think you're going to take out the US military with anything short of equivalent equipment. If you think it's to clearly protect the rights of people to own their own firearms, but this doesn't mean it includes high-grade military firepower, then it seems equally impossible to me to determine what exactly you should and shouldn't be allowed (because again, nobody anticipated these kinds of weapons back there).
I see both arguments as being inherently contradictory. You can't make an effective militia for anti-government overthrowing protected in the constitution if you can't decide if it allows everything. Similarly, you can't tell if you aren't allowed assault rifles or whatever because the constitution doesn't adequately define what 'arms' exactly means anywhere.
Nobody seems to be able to bloody win! Unless we somehow dig up their corpses, reanimate them and ask them.
The states have large enough supplies of heavier weapons and ordnance,
May I ask, somewhat sarcastically, but I have to, how many of these militia jacking said weapons and ordinance have ever actually used them? How many people do you know can fly an apache helicopter? Drive an M1 abrams tank? Correctly use a crusader artillery tank? I don't think you quite appreciate that you don't win wars without aircraft, tanks and artillery.
Edit:
Civilian weapons might not be as effective as military weapons,
The idea of any militia ever being necessary in the defence of the US mainland (er, have you folks not noticed the big oceans on either side of your country) without a wholesale implosion of US society and your not-inconsiderably-sized regular military is laughable.
That was not the reason cited, however. The reason was that they felt it necessaru to the defense of a free state; that once you started getting large numbers of federal troops, it opened the path towards federal abuses of power. And yes, we do have big oceans on either side of the nation. We have regularly projected power across those oceans, so I don't find it wholly unreasonable to consider that someone else might do the same.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The idea of any militia ever being necessary in the defence of the US mainland (er, have you folks not noticed the big oceans on either side of your country) without a wholesale implosion of US society and your not-inconsiderably-sized regular military is laughable.
That was not the reason cited, however. The reason was that they felt it necessaru to the defense of a free state; that once you started getting large numbers of federal troops, it opened the path towards federal abuses of power.
Yeah, tell me again how they envisioned beating a federal army that would have M1 tanks and apache helicopters with a militia armed with small arms only.
Let me get a chair here and a bag of popcorn while you tell me.
The states have large enough supplies of heavier weapons and ordnance,
May I ask, somewhat sarcastically, but I have to, how many of these militia jacking said weapons and ordinance have ever actually used them? How many people do you know can fly an apache helicopter? Drive an M1 abrams tank? Correctly use a crusader artillery tank? I don't think you quite appreciate that you don't win wars without aircraft, tanks and artillery.
How many people use those vehicles in the National Guards? How many people have been trained to use them during past service in the NG (or standing military)? It's not like the mob is going to show up at the base and draw straws to see who gets to drive the tank, hoping for the best.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The states have large enough supplies of heavier weapons and ordnance,
May I ask, somewhat sarcastically, but I have to, how many of these militia jacking said weapons and ordinance have ever actually used them? How many people do you know can fly an apache helicopter? Drive an M1 abrams tank? Correctly use a crusader artillery tank? I don't think you quite appreciate that you don't win wars without aircraft, tanks and artillery.
How many people use those vehicles in the National Guards? How many people have been trained to use them during past service in the NG (or standing military)?
That's what you need to determine isn't it, but this seems again more like semantics and less like addressing if the intent of a militia that is supposed to be armed and capable of fighting the government (of which, the National Guard may certainly actually be a part of) if need be.
I argue that without anyone to actually do any of these things, they're pretty much completely toothless.
It's not like the mob is going to show up at the base and draw straws to see who gets to drive the tank, hoping for the best.
Sounds like it. That is if they aren't massacred by snipers and heavy machine guns anyway.
Edit: Is the national guard even trained in how to use an M1 abrams tank? Fly an apache? Also seems to me the National Guard gets amalgamated into the US army during a time of conflict.
Again, I'm not quite buying how this militia of yours manages to get anything other than a resounding thumping from overwhelming enemy firepower.
Remember, there are two branches of the militia; the organized militia, which has similar training and hardware to the standing army, and the unorganized militia, which is basically a very large body of armed men who may not be able to use a tank, but sure as hell can be given some anti-armor weapons, and quite literally know the area like their own back yard.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Remember, there are two branches of the militia; the organized militia, which has similar training and hardware to the standing army, and the unorganized militia, which is basically a very large body of armed men who may not be able to use a tank, but sure as hell can be given some anti-armor weapons, and quite literally know the area like their own back yard.
Well, the Iraqi army had antiquated tanks, somewhat out of date anti-tank weaponry and maybe a mig or two. How well did knowing their own back yard and having a gun do for them when the Americans ran over them with F-16s, apaches and M1 tanks? Six weeks IIRC.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to make a really clever argument here that a militia primarily armed with small arms, as the constitution would permit (if we're being logical and ruling out things like militias being entitled to arm themselves with tanks, though lord knows where you'd get enough money to buy an abrams for) stands up against an army with overwhelming firepower. A single apache can completely devastate any number of infantry and be entirely impossible to get rid of without having suitable anti-helicopter weaponry (maybe not even then).
Of course, this is where I get the confusion from:
I'd argue that a 30-round magazine in a full-auto rifle with armor-piercing rounds is unreasonable for self-defense. However, self-defense (as in, from criminals) isn't the only purpose to the second amendment, and for the other hypothetical purpose that's precisely the weapon you'd want.
Now, here is where I'm confused, how does having a assault rifle do jack shit all when the government runs over your lawn gnomes with a tank? It doesn't. But where is the ceiling for what the 2nd amendment has in the purpose of a militia that can fight the government, because in modern times, you need a lot more than small arms. I think it's absurd to think you can justify fully automatic assault rifles on this premise on one hand, while ignoring the tank that's barging through your living room that an assault rifle is equally as good as having a pistol against anyway.
Also, has it been established that they were talking about "security" solely from the federal government? I mean, given that the states couldn't count on immediate deployment federal troops, there were a lot of other groups that the states needed to worry about in terms of security.
That is, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[...]" could just as easily be interpreted to mean "given that your state is free (and cannot completely rely on the federal government for defense), a well-regulated militia is necessary for security."
Interesting idea Doc, but I'm 99.9% sure that the capital S in State denotes the entire country (ie nation-state), not individual states within the federal whole. And if you were talking about a state of freedom (as in a Locke style natural law governing all citizens), then the accepted way to write it at the time would have been a 'state of Freedom', or a 'Free state'.
Pretty sure it does actually mean "an autonomous country".
But they are still weapons that can be carried by infantry. I believe you're avoiding the point here, which is that these are weapons capable of being borne by a lone infantry solider and are not classical bulky (and hard to use for one person) weapons like cannons or similar. Also, I'm going to question the relevance of modern definitions towards the understanding of the term "arms" where such weapons did not exist at all. Is an assault rifle 'personal arms'? Is a GPMG? Is a .50 BMG?
M2s are generally crew-served, as are many GPMGs. SAWs (M249, RPD, BAR) are exceptions to this, but generally, you aren't going to be lugging a machine gun across a field along with the tripod, ammo and battery (if required) by yourself.
So...what's the non-selfdefence argument for owning the M4 and armour piercing rounds then? Why not just have a semi-automatic rifle? Why not just have normal rounds? What's the rationale that means you need the military-grade kit?
Interesting idea Doc, but I'm 99.9% sure that the capital S in State denotes the entire country (ie nation-state), not individual states within the federal whole. And if you were talking about a state of freedom (as in a Locke style natural law governing all citizens), then the accepted way to write it at the time would have been a 'state of Freedom', or a 'Free state'.
Pretty sure it does actually mean "an autonomous country".
All I mean is that "security of a free State" didn't necessarily and strictly mean "security from the federal government," right? What about security from the Spanish?
Interesting idea Doc, but I'm 99.9% sure that the capital S in State denotes the entire country (ie nation-state), not individual states within the federal whole. And if you were talking about a state of freedom (as in a Locke style natural law governing all citizens), then the accepted way to write it at the time would have been a 'state of Freedom', or a 'Free state'.
Pretty sure it does actually mean "an autonomous country".
The capital S in State can refer to the member states. The sixth and tenth amendments both use a capital letter when referring to the member states.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Well, the Iraqi army had antiquated tanks, somewhat out of date anti-tank weaponry and maybe a mig or two. How well did knowing their own back yard and having a gun do for them when the Americans ran over them with F-16s, apaches and M1 tanks? Six weeks IIRC.
The National guards use modern tanks, up to date weaponry and are starting to use the F-22 Raptor.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Interesting idea Doc, but I'm 99.9% sure that the capital S in State denotes the entire country (ie nation-state), not individual states within the federal whole. And if you were talking about a state of freedom (as in a Locke style natural law governing all citizens), then the accepted way to write it at the time would have been a 'state of Freedom', or a 'Free state'.
Pretty sure it does actually mean "an autonomous country".
All I mean is that "security of a free State" didn't necessarily and strictly mean "security from the federal government," right? What about security from the Spanish?
This is really what they are talking about Doc. They honestly felt that things might occur that would require every available man to grab whatever was handy and defend themselves. It might be a tyrannical government, it might be a French invasion, it might be aliens, it might be the state next to you getting uppity and deciding it thinks your historic site should be there historic site, it could be any number of unforseeable situations. But when the barbarians are at the gates, and the army is 6 hours away they wanted their people able to have a chance at fighting for their lives.
The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee success in fighting whomever is attacking. A full auto is no use against a tank, however its a lot more useful than a rock.
I'm torn between various interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and with differing ideas as to what the founding fathers intended in the first place.
For one, was it intended to keep a fairly well-armed populace that could be called upon as a militia to combat invading forces? Or, after their experience with British and focus on checks and balances, was it intended to allow the citizenry to defend themselves against their own government should it become corrupted or necessary?
If it's the latter, I'd imagine the cut-off for what is and isnt' allowed being at what would enable a citizen to reasonably be able to combat a law enforcement official or national guard member who decided to attack them.
It's actually both. The right to bear arms was designed so that the populace would not fall victim to foreign invaders or domestic tyrants. So that (in the absence of federal/state military support) average citizens wouldn't fall prey to the fancies of any organized group coming into their homes with automatic weaponry (even though the ammendment was drafted before automatic guns were invented, I know).
The bitch of it is that the criminal element of our society is using this liberty to actively combat peace officers and shoot people who "owe them some fat-stacks". In short they are ruining it for the rest of us. So what you have to decide is do you trust your neighbor enough to let them own guns, or do you think you could handle them if they get unnervingly trigger happy?
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
Alternatively, using anachronistic technicalities of a 200+ year old piece of legislation is moronic.
Using them to gauge intent, however, is probably quite wise.
Am I the only person here who isn't on the whole Scaliatastic "original intent" bandwagon when it comes to issues of Constitutional interpretation?
Even if it was possible to fashion one true "original intent" out of the mass of often viciously contradictory opinions that the framers held about, well, pretty much everything, what about that whole "the Constitution is a living document" concept?
I think a lot of this debate could be avoided or at least reduced if the background check system was overhauled and actually worked to stop clinically crazy people from getting guns.
People also need to secure their guns and ammo in separate locked gunsafes or locked gunclosets. Guns should also be stored with trigger locks in place. I would be ok with these things being made law. I really suspect that kind of legislation would be even more difficult to enforce than the seat belt laws.
DouglasDanger on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think a lot of this debate could be avoided or at least reduced if the background check system was overhauled and actually worked to stop clinically crazy people from getting guns.
People also need to secure their guns and ammo in separate locked gunsafes or locked gunclosets. Guns should also be stored with trigger locks in place. I would be ok with these things being made law. I really suspect that kind of legislation would be even more difficult to enforce than the seat belt laws.
The problem is that safe and effective storage further negates any ability for home defense.
Alternatively, using anachronistic technicalities of a 200+ year old piece of legislation is moronic.
Using them to gauge intent, however, is probably quite wise.
Am I the only person here who isn't on the whole Scaliatastic "original intent" bandwagon when it comes to issues of Constitutional interpretation?
Even if it was possible to fashion one true "original intent" out of the mass of often viciously contradictory opinions that the framers held about, well, pretty much everything, what about that whole "the Constitution is a living document" concept?
It is a point of view, but it is not a universal one, neither is original intent. My big problem with the living document theory is that the methods of changing the constitution are written within it, and they are intentionally not easy to fulfull. Even though it seems logical in certain situations, it is too open to abuse.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I think a lot of this debate could be avoided or at least reduced if the background check system was overhauled and actually worked to stop clinically crazy people from getting guns.
People also need to secure their guns and ammo in separate locked gunsafes or locked gunclosets. Guns should also be stored with trigger locks in place. I would be ok with these things being made law. I really suspect that kind of legislation would be even more difficult to enforce than the seat belt laws.
The problem is that safe and effective storage further negates any ability for home defense.
Hm. That is true. You could keep a gun or two unlocked for home defense, but the rest should be trigger locked.
Alternatively, using anachronistic technicalities of a 200+ year old piece of legislation is moronic.
Using them to gauge intent, however, is probably quite wise.
Am I the only person here who isn't on the whole Scaliatastic "original intent" bandwagon when it comes to issues of Constitutional interpretation?
Even if it was possible to fashion one true "original intent" out of the mass of often viciously contradictory opinions that the framers held about, well, pretty much everything, what about that whole "the Constitution is a living document" concept?
It is a point of view, but it is not a universal one, neither is original intent. My big problem with the living document theory is that the methods of changing the constitution are written within it, and they are intentionally not easy to fulfull. Even though it seems logical in certain situations, it is too open to abuse.
"Original intent" is just as ideologically driven and open for abuse as any other doctrine of Constitutional interpretation. I don't hear a lot of Originalist judges pointing out how the very concept of judicial review isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution, or name-drop the framers who were in favor of expansive federal power, for example.
Infantry borne rockets I do not believe would have been described as artillery, as this was typically a term reserved for the larger machines like catapults, cannons, trebuchets and the like and their crew.
(It is worth noting that some historians call massed units of bowmen, such as those used as Agincourt as "artillery" as the primary effect of having arrows reign down on you is to disrupt infantry formations. I'm not quite sure I agree with this.)
As "recently" as the Franco-Prussian War, the French categorised their early machine guns as "artillery" (and thus held them in the rear with the rest of the cannons and what not . . . yada, yada, yada, they were beaten by the Germans).
This thread makes me kind of glad to be in Canada though - no need to worry about "founder's intent" (even though a fair number of them are still alive since the Charter and the amended British North America Act was only passed in 1982), it's all living document up here or as we prefer it "living tree".
Though I suppose a living tree approach would kind of lean towards opening up "arms" to mean all manner of weapons capable of countering those of the federal army.
Well, the Iraqi army had antiquated tanks, somewhat out of date anti-tank weaponry and maybe a mig or two. How well did knowing their own back yard and having a gun do for them when the Americans ran over them with F-16s, apaches and M1 tanks? Six weeks IIRC.
The National guards use modern tanks, up to date weaponry and are starting to use the F-22 Raptor.
This is true. In fact, the National Guard generally has newer equipment than, say, the Marines (though often stuff like communication equipment is somewhat older). Our state alone (which is not large) has Abrams, Bradleys, Chinooks, and Blackhawks...and that's just the Army side.
Edit: Is the national guard even trained in how to use an M1 abrams tank? Fly an apache? Also seems to me the National Guard gets amalgamated into the US army during a time of conflict.
Yes and yes. And not every past member of the Army and Guard will be be federalized. In fact, it's not even a given that in a coup situation that every state's National Guard would answer the federal government's call.
I'm just one guardsman, and I'm trained to drive an M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, M577/M113 APC, and various other wheeled vehicles. I can operate the M249, M240, and M2 machine guns. I can also man every station in an M1 Abrams (load, drive, gun, and command). I could go on, but the point is that there are plenty of current and past soldiers (including guardsmen) that would be able to man and maintain such vehicles...and really, for ground vehicles at least, it's not that hard to learn.
In other words, it's pretty clear you don't know much about the subject you're discussing.
Posts
All US coins should have the President on the reverse side & $10 coins should have $500 worth of gold in them
You should get a free newspaper in your mail, which should cost no more than 12 cents to send via the Post Office.
And, of course, you shouldn't actually be allowed handguns & assault rifles, but rather 'a good musket or firelock' - note, only the one as well. Oh, and for National Guard volunteers in a cav regiment, where's your horse!
Alternatively, using anachronistic technicalities of a 200+ year old piece of legislation is moronic.
Using them to gauge intent, however, is probably quite wise.
Many do, actually. Including myself. I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to carry a switchblade knife. Especially in a state where I can carry a compact handgun. And yes, in many states this is actually the case, and it's ludicrous.
Any other positions you'd like to assume that I, or many others, hold so that I may correct you?
I'd argue that a 30-round magazine in a full-auto rifle with armor-piercing rounds is unreasonable for self-defense. However, self-defense (as in, from criminals) isn't the only purpose to the second amendment, and for the other hypothetical purpose that's precisely the weapon you'd want.
But personally I can totally understand charging somebody with reckless endangerment if they actually popped off 15 or 20 rounds from an M4 at a burglar. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have owned one in the first place. Just means that they probably should have known better, preferably through some form of (government funded) training equivalent to, at the least, a written driver's exam.
"Q: Is a semi-automatic rifle the proper firearm for shooting a burglar?
A: Fuck no.
Q: Will you likely go to jail if you do so?
A: Yes."
No, because as has already been mentioned, those were supposed to be maintained by the states.
- John Stuart Mill
But, as you noted yourself, this is not actually written as is into the relevant part of the constitution being discussed. It makes no distinction between 'arms' and 'field arms' (which is things like cannons). Also, if the intent is to allow for a militia that could effectively fight a tyrannical government, then it fails at doing that because no matter how many guys with rifles you have, if the government turns up with tanks and helicopters you're instantly screwed.
I'm taking the argument to this absurdity because I think it's equally silly to propose having fully automatic weapons in civilians hands using the "fighting the government" principal. Unless you have planes, helicopters, tanks and everything else, you're going to have a delightfully short and messy war. Having access to fully automatic weapons isn't going to actually help. Sure, it will help you keep rapists off your lawn pretty easily, but it also means that the rapists can arm themselves better as well. When you have fast firing weapons capable of suppressing areas in civilian hands, who REALLY wins here? Do you think defending your home because easier or harder with freely available automatic weapons? Are the police routinely going to carry mp5s? I would feel comfortable with my aim and ability to out-shoot someone armed with a bolt action rifle or your average semi-automatic pistol if I had one myself, but the risk of harm to myself in a firefight (or others) with automatic weapons just goes through the roof.
Edit: On reflection, I have to wonder if the term 'arms' does refer to field weapons also. Even the people who wrote that would realise someone would have a difficult time fighting anyone without their own field artillery and similar weapons, which if they were only allowed to be in government control would seemingly defeat the purpose.
Well there you go.
I bet you were cut off by an SUV.
[I can't help but admit that's pretty awesome].
- John Stuart Mill
- John Stuart Mill
But in saying that, we have armaments today that are infantry borne that are equally (moreso) powerful than a cannon back then. For example, an RPG launcher or LAW easily falls under personal arms (by this definition) for weaponry in modern standards.
- John Stuart Mill
But they are still weapons that can be carried by infantry. I believe you're avoiding the point here, which is that these are weapons capable of being borne by a lone infantry solider and are not classical bulky (and hard to use for one person) weapons like cannons or similar. Also, I'm going to question the relevance of modern definitions towards the understanding of the term "arms" where such weapons did not exist at all. Is an assault rifle 'personal arms'? Is a GPMG? Is a .50 BMG? Is your average .50 cal sniper rifle (actually, this one probably wouldn't bother them much)? Is a minigun? An RPG is destructive, but how much more destructive is it in comparison with a modern BMG, especially considering that you can inflict a lot more carnage over time with a .50 cal machine gun than an RPG.
Again, this is going back to the original point that I do not see how fully automatic weapons should be covered for the same reason, unless we throw everything else in as well. Because if the point was to make sure you could overthrow the government (hence needing automatic weapons), you need a bit more than just that to make an effective anti-government militia in modern times.
Infantry borne rockets I do not believe would have been described as artillery, as this was typically a term reserved for the larger machines like catapults, cannons, trebuchets and the like and their crew.
(It is worth noting that some historians call massed units of bowmen, such as those used as Agincourt as "artillery" as the primary effect of having arrows reign down on you is to disrupt infantry formations. I'm not quite sure I agree with this.)
Edit: We should be aware that the machine gun was developed well after the revolutionary war and the constitution was written. I would argue if we consider a weapon like an RPG 'artillery', then so too would they have seen the likes of the GPMG and assault rifle as artillery. It's important to bear in mind that once machine guns turned up, the kinds of wars that involved two armies standing around shooting one another with rifles went from being pretty horrible massacres to pure unrestricted blood baths. Nobody back in 1787 when they wrote this thing could have imagined how quickly warfare was going to advance in the next 100 years (the Gattling gun was developed in 1861), so I feel that when you try to move the point away by playing semantics with modern definitions about weapons we actually have a good understanding about is fairly irrelevant from any point being made. Either they intended that a militia should be a viable force vs. a [possibly] tyrannical government army or they didn't with what they wrote. If they didn't and they were merely securing the rights of people to bear small arms for use in things like hunting, protection and similar, then there is no logical reason why it should be applied to fully automatic weapons and assault rifles. Someone can learn how to use an assault rifle if they've fired other small arms before with a bit of an adjustment, which certainly would be within the spirit and meaning of what they intended (so that you had a population experienced with firearms, better able to quickly adjust to training as soldiers).
If it's supposed to protect people from their government by guaranteeing them the right to bear weaponry that would enable them to fight the government if required, then that does mean you would have to include modern weaponry into the defintion. Regardless of if you want to play semantics about calling a RPG launcher artillery, 'light weapons' or anything else, because you kinda need this stuff or you're going to be very dead.
The intent is in the 2nd Amendment. People on the previous page were arguing details of the 1792 Militia Act. Not the same thing at all. Also, it seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for a National Guard type organisation...which you already have in the National Guard.
I wasn't actually assuming you held that position, was I...thus mentioning it as a general problem of progun logic rather than addressing you? Glad we both agree it's ludicrous then.
So...what's the non-selfdefence argument for owning the M4 and armour piercing rounds then? Why not just have a semi-automatic rifle? Why not just have normal rounds? What's the rationale that means you need the military-grade kit?
Just so you know, I'm intentionally trying to avoid directly addressing the 'olol militia' answer that I hope isn't coming, because as far as I'm concerned: 1. The idea of any militia ever being necessary in the defence of the US mainland (er, have you folks not noticed the big oceans on either side of your country) without a wholesale implosion of US society and your not-inconsiderably-sized regular military is laughable, and 2. The idea that they would be remotely effective against a modern military (ie your own) without the various arms that you have already excluded (ie explosives, RPGs) is similarly absurd - look at how insurgents fight in Iraq; small arms are used almost exclusively in a suppression role, the real damage comes from reworked explosives & old arty / AT arms. In short - if you are serious about this milita thing, then you should be arguing for rights to many more weapons than you are.
The private-gun-owners-as-militia argument is so patently anachronistic that I really don't know how else to put it. Actually, yes I do - it is as absurd as claiming that I should be spending every Sunday afternoon practicing with my longbow on the village green, just because there is still a medieval law on the books in England which demands it. True story.
Some historians need to buy a dictionary then.
that a state militia could probably do a number on the federal military. Civilian weapons might not be as effective as military weapons, but unless it turns into a state vs state conflict, the state guard backed up by a large civilian-armed militia is still going to have a fair chance of being more trouble than it is worth for the standing army (in all honesty, I don't think that the military could take the California state guard backed by its unorganized militia, especially if the National Guard came in on the side of the state). Rocket artillery began as a man portable weapon, basically a glorified bottle rocket with a launching sled.
- John Stuart Mill
It's worth noting that the Insurgency has almost no ability to actually fight US marines in an upfront conflict, especially at night. The equipment, training and weaponry of the US military is far superior and IIRC, most engagements where the insurgents actually try and fight US marines are one-sided massacres. Hence the bombings and everything else.
This is why I find it a confusing argument that people need automatic weapons. You don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself, you don't need an automatic weapon to go deer hunting and the only reason I can think of for needing one is to fight the US army. But then, the Insurgents have AK-47s and that's an automatic weapon, yet that definitely isn't enough.
So clearly you need the other bits as well, like anti-tank weapons for that M1 abrams that is going to roll over your garden gnomes and generally oppress you. Or a .50 caliber machine gun for suppressing the US troops who are similarly using them against your hodge-podge armed militia. Again, this is the problem of trying to think about how people with:
No idea what a tank is
Haven't a clue what aircraft, helicopters, nuclear bombs and similar mass destructive weapons are
Wouldn't believe the firepower of a naval ship like a cruiser or destroyer (with its array of missiles etc)
Write something a long time ago where none of these exist in terms that make perfect sense to them, then have people try to apply it in modern times. There is something about reading through all of this debate that I just don't get frankly. It's coming down to more and more fun with definitions and less thinking about things logically. If you think that it's supposed to allow you to protect yourself from your government by arming yourself, I really have to question your sanity if you think you're going to take out the US military with anything short of equivalent equipment. If you think it's to clearly protect the rights of people to own their own firearms, but this doesn't mean it includes high-grade military firepower, then it seems equally impossible to me to determine what exactly you should and shouldn't be allowed (because again, nobody anticipated these kinds of weapons back there).
I see both arguments as being inherently contradictory. You can't make an effective militia for anti-government overthrowing protected in the constitution if you can't decide if it allows everything. Similarly, you can't tell if you aren't allowed assault rifles or whatever because the constitution doesn't adequately define what 'arms' exactly means anywhere.
Nobody seems to be able to bloody win! Unless we somehow dig up their corpses, reanimate them and ask them.
May I ask, somewhat sarcastically, but I have to, how many of these militia jacking said weapons and ordinance have ever actually used them? How many people do you know can fly an apache helicopter? Drive an M1 abrams tank? Correctly use a crusader artillery tank? I don't think you quite appreciate that you don't win wars without aircraft, tanks and artillery.
Edit:
That's quite the understatement.
That was not the reason cited, however. The reason was that they felt it necessaru to the defense of a free state; that once you started getting large numbers of federal troops, it opened the path towards federal abuses of power. And yes, we do have big oceans on either side of the nation. We have regularly projected power across those oceans, so I don't find it wholly unreasonable to consider that someone else might do the same.
- John Stuart Mill
Yeah, tell me again how they envisioned beating a federal army that would have M1 tanks and apache helicopters with a militia armed with small arms only.
Let me get a chair here and a bag of popcorn while you tell me.
How many people use those vehicles in the National Guards? How many people have been trained to use them during past service in the NG (or standing military)? It's not like the mob is going to show up at the base and draw straws to see who gets to drive the tank, hoping for the best.
- John Stuart Mill
That's what you need to determine isn't it, but this seems again more like semantics and less like addressing if the intent of a militia that is supposed to be armed and capable of fighting the government (of which, the National Guard may certainly actually be a part of) if need be.
I argue that without anyone to actually do any of these things, they're pretty much completely toothless.
Sounds like it. That is if they aren't massacred by snipers and heavy machine guns anyway.
Edit: Is the national guard even trained in how to use an M1 abrams tank? Fly an apache? Also seems to me the National Guard gets amalgamated into the US army during a time of conflict.
Again, I'm not quite buying how this militia of yours manages to get anything other than a resounding thumping from overwhelming enemy firepower.
- John Stuart Mill
Well, the Iraqi army had antiquated tanks, somewhat out of date anti-tank weaponry and maybe a mig or two. How well did knowing their own back yard and having a gun do for them when the Americans ran over them with F-16s, apaches and M1 tanks? Six weeks IIRC.
I'm sorry, you're going to have to make a really clever argument here that a militia primarily armed with small arms, as the constitution would permit (if we're being logical and ruling out things like militias being entitled to arm themselves with tanks, though lord knows where you'd get enough money to buy an abrams for) stands up against an army with overwhelming firepower. A single apache can completely devastate any number of infantry and be entirely impossible to get rid of without having suitable anti-helicopter weaponry (maybe not even then).
Of course, this is where I get the confusion from:
Now, here is where I'm confused, how does having a assault rifle do jack shit all when the government runs over your lawn gnomes with a tank? It doesn't. But where is the ceiling for what the 2nd amendment has in the purpose of a militia that can fight the government, because in modern times, you need a lot more than small arms. I think it's absurd to think you can justify fully automatic assault rifles on this premise on one hand, while ignoring the tank that's barging through your living room that an assault rifle is equally as good as having a pistol against anyway.
That is, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[...]" could just as easily be interpreted to mean "given that your state is free (and cannot completely rely on the federal government for defense), a well-regulated militia is necessary for security."
Pretty sure it does actually mean "an autonomous country".
.50 cals are considered anti-materiel. And, it might bother them once someone was nearly halved from a mile away.
Crew-served. Jesse Ventura and the Terminator were carrying around fakes.
One other thing that should be considered a concern -- crew served radios:
Cuz I want one.
All I mean is that "security of a free State" didn't necessarily and strictly mean "security from the federal government," right? What about security from the Spanish?
- John Stuart Mill
The National guards use modern tanks, up to date weaponry and are starting to use the F-22 Raptor.
- John Stuart Mill
This is really what they are talking about Doc. They honestly felt that things might occur that would require every available man to grab whatever was handy and defend themselves. It might be a tyrannical government, it might be a French invasion, it might be aliens, it might be the state next to you getting uppity and deciding it thinks your historic site should be there historic site, it could be any number of unforseeable situations. But when the barbarians are at the gates, and the army is 6 hours away they wanted their people able to have a chance at fighting for their lives.
The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee success in fighting whomever is attacking. A full auto is no use against a tank, however its a lot more useful than a rock.
For one, was it intended to keep a fairly well-armed populace that could be called upon as a militia to combat invading forces? Or, after their experience with British and focus on checks and balances, was it intended to allow the citizenry to defend themselves against their own government should it become corrupted or necessary?
If it's the latter, I'd imagine the cut-off for what is and isnt' allowed being at what would enable a citizen to reasonably be able to combat a law enforcement official or national guard member who decided to attack them.
The bitch of it is that the criminal element of our society is using this liberty to actively combat peace officers and shoot people who "owe them some fat-stacks". In short they are ruining it for the rest of us. So what you have to decide is do you trust your neighbor enough to let them own guns, or do you think you could handle them if they get unnervingly trigger happy?
Am I the only person here who isn't on the whole Scaliatastic "original intent" bandwagon when it comes to issues of Constitutional interpretation?
Even if it was possible to fashion one true "original intent" out of the mass of often viciously contradictory opinions that the framers held about, well, pretty much everything, what about that whole "the Constitution is a living document" concept?
People also need to secure their guns and ammo in separate locked gunsafes or locked gunclosets. Guns should also be stored with trigger locks in place. I would be ok with these things being made law. I really suspect that kind of legislation would be even more difficult to enforce than the seat belt laws.
It is a point of view, but it is not a universal one, neither is original intent. My big problem with the living document theory is that the methods of changing the constitution are written within it, and they are intentionally not easy to fulfull. Even though it seems logical in certain situations, it is too open to abuse.
- John Stuart Mill
Hm. That is true. You could keep a gun or two unlocked for home defense, but the rest should be trigger locked.
"Original intent" is just as ideologically driven and open for abuse as any other doctrine of Constitutional interpretation. I don't hear a lot of Originalist judges pointing out how the very concept of judicial review isn't actually mentioned in the Constitution, or name-drop the framers who were in favor of expansive federal power, for example.
This thread makes me kind of glad to be in Canada though - no need to worry about "founder's intent" (even though a fair number of them are still alive since the Charter and the amended British North America Act was only passed in 1982), it's all living document up here or as we prefer it "living tree".
Though I suppose a living tree approach would kind of lean towards opening up "arms" to mean all manner of weapons capable of countering those of the federal army.
This is true. In fact, the National Guard generally has newer equipment than, say, the Marines (though often stuff like communication equipment is somewhat older). Our state alone (which is not large) has Abrams, Bradleys, Chinooks, and Blackhawks...and that's just the Army side.
Yes and yes. And not every past member of the Army and Guard will be be federalized. In fact, it's not even a given that in a coup situation that every state's National Guard would answer the federal government's call.
I'm just one guardsman, and I'm trained to drive an M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, M577/M113 APC, and various other wheeled vehicles. I can operate the M249, M240, and M2 machine guns. I can also man every station in an M1 Abrams (load, drive, gun, and command). I could go on, but the point is that there are plenty of current and past soldiers (including guardsmen) that would be able to man and maintain such vehicles...and really, for ground vehicles at least, it's not that hard to learn.
In other words, it's pretty clear you don't know much about the subject you're discussing.