CDZ Let's talk about bump-stocks, banana clips and other gun accessories

[ding]

No....the civilian would bring his privately owned weapon to militia duty....but that has no bearing on our discussion since the Right to bear arms is an individual Right, not connected to military service.

So "militia" duty has no bearing on the Second Amendment?

P.S. Are you happy to accept whatever "interpretation" SCOTUS comes up with?

Need I remind you of Dredd Scott.

 

[ding]

Who are the militia? The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

It is true that standardized firearms were uncommon in the U.S. at that time. However, the model for militias was Switzerland, which issued military weapons to every adult male. That is why the Second Amendment refers to "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The intent of arms is not standardized arms it is the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Otherwise they would have said muskets. They were some sharp dudes.

The current Swiss model had nothing to do with the framing or intention of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a fundamental right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

That right is not absolute, however, and subject to regulations and restrictions by government, including the banning of AR platform rifles, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Yes banning rifles for purely cosmetic reasons is Constitutional but that doesn't mean it isn't fucking stupid

That's for the people to determine via the political process.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is a fundamental right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

That right is not absolute, however, and subject to regulations and restrictions by government, including the banning of AR platform rifles, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Yes banning rifles for purely cosmetic reasons is Constitutional but that doesn't mean it isn't fucking stupid

That's for the people to determine via the political process.

Yes we all know how stupid "the people" can be

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see no reason to own anything more than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

Why the high capacity magazine?

A 30 round magazine is not 'high capacity' because that's the standard configuration for that firearm.

A drum magazine in excess of 30 rounds would be high capacity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No....the civilian would bring his privately owned weapon to militia duty....but that has no bearing on our discussion since the Right to bear arms is an individual Right, not connected to military service.

So "militia" duty has no bearing on the Second Amendment?

P.S. Are you happy to accept whatever "interpretation" SCOTUS comes up with?

The individual right to possess a firearm is unconnected with militia service.

 

[2aguy]

No....the civilian would bring his privately owned weapon to militia duty....but that has no bearing on our discussion since the Right to bear arms is an individual Right, not connected to military service.

So "militia" duty has no bearing on the Second Amendment?

P.S. Are you happy to accept whatever "interpretation" SCOTUS comes up with?

Need I remind you of Dredd Scott.

Shhhhhh....you are introducing truth, facts and reality to a debate with a gun grabber...that isn't allowed....they will hide behind a dead child if you keep doing that...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

A little history lesson: The Federalist Papers were arguments in favor of a U.S. Constitution that did not include ANY Amendments, which were later added by the States as a condition of their ratification. Furthermore, these Amendments only applied to the Federal Government, not to the States (who reserved the right to maintain militias against federal or foreign invasion).

And since all have been ruled to constrain the States as well, do keep up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No....the civilian would bring his privately owned weapon to militia duty....but that has no bearing on our discussion since the Right to bear arms is an individual Right, not connected to military service.

So "militia" duty has no bearing on the Second Amendment?

P.S. Are you happy to accept whatever "interpretation" SCOTUS comes up with?

So you disagree with what the Supreme Court says? Does that mean abortion is wrong ?

 

[9thIDdoc]

During Infantry AIT and OCS, I was trained in firing every weapon in the Army inventory from a 5.56 mm M16 to a 106 mm Recoilless Rifle, so i am dismayed by the hysterical responses and faux expertise posted in this CDZ thread. As far as automatic weapons are concerned, their principal advantage is not their rate of fire, but their ammunition capacity. That is why the M16(AR15) came with an expanded 20 round magazine. This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)

Being a gun aficionado, I have also fired Uzi, Schmeisser, Ithaca and Thompson submachine guns at firing ranges, but their private ownership is strictly regulated by the AFT. SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS From what I have observed, the desire to own military-derived weapons stems more from their macho image than from legitimate hunting or self defense purposes. If it takes you 20 shots to bring down a deer, you shouldn't be hunting. (My bolt-action 30.06 worked just fine.)

Do any of you favor any restrictions on the private ownership of these weapons? Please be civil in your responses.

"This was designed as an offensive military weapons, not for self defense. (The M1911 Colt .50 caliber pistol was designed for the latter.)"

Well...on the bright side, you have now convinced me you were once a 2nd Lt. On the not-so-bright side it's a real shame that while you were in OCS training to be expert with all weapons they didn't inform you what ammunition the 1911 actually fires.

Sorry for the typo. Should be .45 caliber. (I was thinking about the short .50 caliber spotting round on the 106 RR.)

Right. You mistook an iconic handgun for a recoilless rifle. I'm sure that's a common mistake among military weapons experts.

 

[9thIDdoc]

There is a fundamental right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

That right is not absolute, however, and subject to regulations and restrictions by government, including the banning of AR platform rifles, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Yes banning rifles for purely cosmetic reasons is Constitutional but that doesn't mean it isn't fucking stupid

That's for the people to determine via the political process.

And they have.

 

[ding]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

There is no need to overthrow a lawfully elected government by force because an armed populace is a deterrent against a lawfully elected government becoming a tyrannical government.

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize a rebellion. The 2nd Amendment restricts the government, state and national, from infringing upon the rights of peaceable law abiding citizens from owning and possessing weapons that a light infantry ought to possess.

 

[ding]

I see no reason to own anything more than a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

Why the high capacity magazine?

A 30 round magazine is not 'high capacity' because that's the standard configuration for that firearm.

A drum magazine in excess of 30 rounds would be high capacity.

Tell that to the state of California.

 

[ding]

There is a fundamental right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

That right is not absolute, however, and subject to regulations and restrictions by government, including the banning of AR platform rifles, which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

No. It is totally inconsistent to allow the entity that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect us from the say in what weapons we will be allowed to protect ourselves with.

The 2nd Amendment is not about personal defense or hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government which has a standing army.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Nonsense.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First.

The guns = liberty/freedom myth is as ridiculous as it is wrong

"There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the overthrow of a lawfully elected government through force of arms because a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive that government to have become 'tyrannical.'

Nevertheless that is exactly how America came to be. And that is exactly what many of our forefathers advocated when necessary. In our system of checks and balances an armed populace is intended to be the final check on government. It should not be forgotten that the courts are a branch of government.

 

[jwoodie]

You mistook an iconic handgun for a recoilless rifle. I'm sure that's a common mistake among military weapons experts.

Can't let go of that one, can ya? But stay with it if that's all ya got...

P.S. You obviously know nothing about the 106 spotter round.

 

[jwoodie]

The current Swiss model had nothing to do with the framing or intention of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/Halbrook-CH-US-Founders-SAHS-11-12-published.pdf

The Swiss system of militia and democracy were well known to
English republicans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The English Whigs, supporters of individual liberty, rolled back the power
of the monarch in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Andrew Fletcher,
in A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias (1698), advocated
“well-regulated militias” to defend the country.

Sound familiar?

 

[ding]

The current Swiss model had nothing to do with the framing or intention of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/Halbrook-CH-US-Founders-SAHS-11-12-published.pdf

The Swiss system of militia and democracy were well known to
English republicans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The English Whigs, supporters of individual liberty, rolled back the power
of the monarch in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Andrew Fletcher,
in A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias (1698), advocated
“well-regulated militias” to defend the country.

Sound familiar?

This was excellent. Thanks.

I think it proves my point, especially if you put it in the context that they had just fought a war themselves.

The Bern militia consisted of “the whole Body of the People, from sixteen to sixty,” and included Fusileers, unmarried men who must be ready to march at one hour’s warning, and Electionaries, the remainder. Stanyan explained: Every Man that is listed, provides himself with Arms at his own Expence; and the Regiments are all armed in an uniforme manner, after the newest Fashion; for which Purpose, there is an Officer called a Commissioner of Arms, whose Business it is, to inspect their Arms and Mounting, to take Care they be conformable to the Standard, and to punish such as fail in those Particulars.

 

[jwoodie]

Need I remind you of Dredd Scott.

...and your point is?