http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotuscnd.html


Yup.

Doesn't make much difference, D.C already had as many guns as could be purchased.  ;D

Heck yeah!  Lately, the court has been ruling in ways that I totally agree with.

Woo Hoo!!!!  The court finally made a decent decision.  The right to bear arms applies to the individual.

Next we gotta get the machine gun ban overturned.

I agree with the decision 100%.

Heck yeah!  Lately, the court has been ruling in ways that I totally agree with.


Me too. Though it makes me nervous - whenever things seem to be going well is when the bottom usually falls out.


Woo Hoo!!!!  The court finally made a decent decision.  The right to bear arms applies to the individual.

Next we gotta get the machine gun ban overturned.


Machine guns aren't banned in the US

http://www.classthreesupply.com/htbmachinegun.htm

If you can find a class 3 licensed dealer, have 8-20k of readily disposable income (+the 200 dollar transfer tax) and can pass a probably slow federal background check you can own a transferrable machine gun.

Ant

Me too. Though it makes me nervous - whenever things seem to be going well is when the bottom usually falls out.

Machine guns aren't banned in the US

http://www.classthreesupply.com/htbmachinegun.htm

If you can find a class 3 licensed dealer, have 8-20k of readily disposable income (+the 200 dollar transfer tax) and can pass a probably slow federal background check you can own a transferrable machine gun.

Ant


Alternatively, purchase an AR-10 and convert it to automatic fire in about 15 minutes and half a dozen easy steps.  ;D

Yeah that's the spirit. Stick to your guns 'cause that has been doing you so good. I find it revealing...the second most important thing after free speech? To own a gun ::)

Reading the Second Amendment i come up with: the right to keep and bear an arm belongs to the people not as individuals,for the only purpose is to let states keep a militia. Therefore a citizen alone has no right to keep and bear arms for personal use.

But maybe i'm just blind to what really is important.

Yeah that's the spirit. Stick to your guns 'cause that has been doing you so good. I find it revealing...the second most important thing after free speech? To own a gun ::)

Reading the Second Amendment i come up with: the right to keep and bear an arm belongs to the people not as individuals,for the only purpose is to let states keep a militia. Therefore a citizen alone has no right to keep and bear arms for personal use.

But maybe i'm just blind to what really is important.


I use to read it that way too, until two students of mine convinced me I was wrong.  If you think about it from an historical context, two things stand out.  First, the brits tried to disarm Americans before the revolution.  Second, the militia was simply every man old enough to shoot a gun, called out to defend the country.  Like the Minute Men at Concord & Lexington.  As C. Wright Mills put it, defense was "the rifle on the mantle piece and the government watched in the night".  The last point is that all the other ten amendments refer to individual right, not collective ones.

The ruling, by the way, allows for restrictions.  As Scalia wrote, "no right is unlimited".

I use to read it that way too, until two students of mine convinced me I was wrong.  If you think about it from an historical context, two things stand out.  First, the brits tried to disarm Americans before the revolution.  Second, the militia was simply every man old enough to shoot a gun, called out to defend the country.  Like the Minute Men at Concord & Lexington.  As C. Wright Mills put it, defense was "the rifle on the mantle piece and the government watched in the night".  The last point is that all the other ten amendments refer to individual right, not collective ones.

The ruling, by the way, allows for restrictions.  As Scalia wrote, "no right is unlimited".


My american history is a little rusty, maybe because i never studied it :-[

But a "well-regulated militia" implies a little more than "every man old enough to shoot a gun", don't you think? If we're going to be so adamant about the historic context we might as well say women can't bear arms, men older than 45 can't either. Everyone can read it a different way, it's not even about that but more about how some are so obsessed with "don't take away my rights" when they don't even think about if it makes sense today or not.

Yeah that's the spirit. Stick to your guns 'cause that has been doing you so good. I find it revealing...the second most important thing after free speech? To own a gun ::)

Reading the Second Amendment i come up with: the right to keep and bear an arm belongs to the people not as individuals,for the only purpose is to let states keep a militia. Therefore a citizen alone has no right to keep and bear arms for personal use.

But maybe i'm just blind to what really is important.


Alternatively, it can be proven quite easily that gun control has done little to prevent crime in America.  D.C. has the highest murder rate per capita in the whole U.S.

As I understand it, gun control isn't particularly popular in Brazil either.

Machine guns aren't banned in the US

http://www.classthreesupply.com/htbmachinegun.htm

If you can find a class 3 licensed dealer, have 8-20k of readily disposable income (+the 200 dollar transfer tax) and can pass a probably slow federal background check you can own a transferrable machine gun.

Ant


True, true.  But I fight for the right of the common man to be able to affordably defend his abode with a machine gun.  Your average Joe Six Pack can't afford all the expense that you mention.  I want to be able to go to the corner gun shop and pick up a full-auto submachine gun.

And while we're at it, remove the restrictions from rifles with more than .50 caliber, and shotguns that are bigger bore than the 10 gauge.

Hooray for the one time murder capitol of the U.S.  There was a reason for the ban.  Gun totters and the NRA won out.

True, true.  But I fight for the right of the common man to be able to affordably defend his abode with a machine gun.  Your average Joe Six Pack can't afford all the expense that you mention.  I want to be able to go to the corner gun shop and pick up a full-auto submachine gun.

And while we're at it, remove the restrictions from rifles with more than .50 caliber, and shotguns that are bigger bore than the 10 gauge.


Dude, I want a Howitzer, but this isn't a perfect world.

True, true.  But I fight for the right of the common man to be able to affordably defend his abode with a machine gun.  Your average Joe Six Pack can't afford all the expense that you mention.  I want to be able to go to the corner gun shop and pick up a full-auto submachine gun.

And while we're at it, remove the restrictions from rifles with more than .50 caliber, and shotguns that are bigger bore than the 10 gauge.


Whoa! Man, I'm about as far right as it comes (on this board) on the issue of gun control, but why on earth would you want a fully automatic weapon to defend your home? I can see arguing the point of the right to own one, that they are fun to shoot (and they are), historical significance, etc. - but home defense? A Glock 18 will empty a 33 round clip in a second and a half, and they take quite a bit of practice to control. Joe Six pack would have the 5th-33rd rounds fatally wounding his Dale Earnhardt commemorative edition ceiling fan...

A MP5 (select fire, burst capabilities) is not a cheaply made weapon. Cheap guns, especially semi autos, are usually pieces of sheesh. Witness the Tec-9.

I've fired a double barrel ten gauge with 3" 00 shells: never again. Same with firing a modern 50BMG rifle (which I owned for a while) from the prone position. 14000 ftlbs of energy is not friendly on one's shoulder, even in a 32lb weapon with a muzzle brake and heavy rubber buttpad.

A 20mm Lahti or Solothurn would be cool (and a Phalanx turret would be nuts), but w/o a million dollar guidance system and 50k worth of ammo (for one minute's worth of firing), what's the use?

Ant

Whoa! Man, I'm about as far right as it comes (on this board) on the issue of gun control, but why on earth would you want a fully automatic weapon to defend your home? I can see arguing the point of the right to own one, that they are fun to shoot (and they are), historical significance, etc. - but home defense? A Glock 18 will empty a 33 round clip in a second and a half, and they take quite a bit of practice to control. Joe Six pack would have the 5th-33rd rounds fatally wounding his Dale Earnhardt commemorative edition ceiling fan...

A MP5 (select fire, burst capabilities) is not a cheaply made weapon. Cheap guns, especially semi autos, are usually pieces of sheesh. Witness the Tec-9.

I've fired a double barrel ten gauge with 3" 00 shells: never again. Same with firing a modern 50BMG rifle (which I owned for a while) from the prone position. 14000 ftlbs of energy is not friendly on one's shoulder, even in a 32lb weapon with a muzzle brake and heavy rubber buttpad.

A 20mm Lahti or Solothurn would be cool (and a Phalanx turret would be nuts), but w/o a million dollar guidance system and 50k worth of ammo (for one minute's worth of firing), what's the use?

Ant


Ant

You used to own a 50BMG , and once fired a double 10 gauge?  Red, you DA MAN !  :)  8)

I have always wanted to get a 50, but where I live it is hard to find a firing range that is 1000 yards long.  And I've never seen a double 10.  Damn, that had to leave a fair bruise on you shoulder!!!

Today full-auto weapons are expensive due to low production volume to the consumer market, ad exclusivity.  Once the machine gun restrictions get repealed, American manufacturing prowess will come to bear on this issue and you'll be able to buy a cheap, reliable full-auto firearm.

Side note... A few months ago, a local police officer and "gun expert" made the mistake of trying to clear the business end of a Dillon Mini-gun by peeking into it.  He told his partner to pull  the trigger (mistakenly thinking that they had disconnected the electric power).  "Folks don't try this at home"

My american history is a little rusty, maybe because i never studied it :-[

But a "well-regulated militia" implies a little more than "every man old enough to shoot a gun", don't you think? If we're going to be so adamant about the historic context we might as well say women can't bear arms, men older than 45 can't either. Everyone can read it a different way, it's not even about that but more about how some are so obsessed with "don't take away my rights" when they don't even think about if it makes sense today or not.


Yes, it did, sort of.  In the settled areas men of military age were expected to turn out periodically for drills.  As more and more working folks became wage workers rather than self employed this created quite a problem.  My point, though, wasn't to advocate for the right, just to say that the ruling makes sense historically.  I'm not sure if it still makes sense or not as a policy, but if not then we need a new amendment.  I agree with Bernie Sanders, whose position is that controls should be left to state and local gov'ts.  So I was making an academic argument, not a political one. 

I'd love for John Adams to come back to life and b*tch-slap Tony Scalia. 

"This is not what we were talking about, dildo!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/twak.gif

I dunno, though, more and more people are getting super-paranoid about the government coming after them.  I was talking to a guy last night who I've known for fifteen years, and he was talking about getting a Glock!
:o

He's not exactly the gun-toting type.  On the other hand, he also had four boilermakers while we were shooting pool, so....
:-\\

The Constitution stands again!

The Constitution stands again!




Nope, it used guaranteeing local militias the right to bear arms and defend themselves.  Now it legally protects people who think that owning a semiautomatic weapon while living in a metropolis is logical. 

Nope, it used guaranteeing local militias the right to bear arms and defend themselves.


The American people are the militia.

Ant

You used to own a 50BMG , and once fired a double 10 gauge?  Red, you DA MAN !   :)  8)

I have always wanted to get a 50, but where I live it is hard to find a firing range that is 1000 yards long.  And I've never seen a double 10.  Damn, that had to leave a fair bruise on you shoulder!!!



That's one reason I sold mine - nowhere to shoot it. Most ranges here don't allow firing steel core ammo, which is what most surplus 50BMG ammo is (newer stuff is lead or solid brass).

A friend of mine, George, got one some months before I got mine. I was at the range the when he took delivery from the dealer and first shot the gun. Robert, the dealer, was standing to the left and back, which, unbeknownst to him, was in direct line with the left port of the enormous muzzle break. George fires the gun, and Robert, who is not a small man by any means (about 350lbs), is physically moved by the blast. He decides standing that close is not a good idea and wisely moves back about 10 feet. George fired another round, which blew the carpet completely off of the shooting station i8 feet to his left (no station to the right).

Lots of fun until George fires his 4th round of mil surplus ammo, which was noticeably hotter than the first three. His bell was rung and he decided he'd had enough of the big 50 for one day. I fired some rounds from it, one from a standard upright hunting position (I've got a Polaroid of it somewhere). It was quite hard to hold something so damned heavy, and the recoil was similar to jogging into a building shoulder first.

None of my shooting friends or dad wanted to fire this gun, save Steve. We shot it on his farm and made the train track piece. He didn't hold it hard enough, and on his first shot the scope nearly broke his nose.

Machine guns might eventually be cheap, but a 50cal or larger will never be. The single shot LAR Grizzly is a 3k weapon (which is cheap for a 50cal), reloading equipment was another grand, and a scope that will hold up is a minimum 500$. If you don't reload, you can expect to pay 5-10$ a round for match grade ammo (i.e., anything not surplus military NOS). Unless you can shoot at a real range (or your own huge property), enjoy shooting something that makes you run for Tylenol after 20 rounds or have a pressing need to take out big game animals at 1/2 a mile or better, I wouldn't recommend one.

Attached is a pic of what an AP round does to a section of old train track. The hole is almost an inch in diameter due to the round puching a steel donut out of the track as it passed through (getting ductile steel of that thickness to basically fracture takes a terrific amount of energy). To the right and up is a tip of another 50 AP round that had already gone through one track and fractured inside this one.

The 50BMG case when full holds more powder than a hand grenade. I never shot my handloads through a speed screen, but upper end loads can exceed 15000 ftlbs of energy. By comparison, a hot 44 magnum load is about 1,500 ft-lbs energy.

Ant

The American people are the militia.

That's sounding a bit fascist.

I know what the stock answer to this is already.
::)

That's sounding a bit fascist.

I know what the stock answer to this is already. ::)


Yeah, Thomas Jefferson.  What a totalitarian nut.

No, I'm not going to spout the stock answer, namely that the tree of liberty sometimes needs a little fertilizer :)

I'm going to spout the constitutional answer by suggesting that you google and read a few State constitutions at random.  Most will contain a clause defining "the militia" as "all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 who are citizens, or who have declared an intention to become citizens".  Some states have amended their constitutions to include women. 

Most such constitutions then subdivide "the militia" into two parts:  the organized militia, typically consisting of the State's National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is most commonly defined as "everyone who is part of the militia but not who is not part of the organized militia".  The Federal government, under USC I-Forget-Which, has a similar definition, except that it uses the US Armed Forces, the Coast Guard, and a few other folks as the organized militia, and the vast majority of everyone-else as part of the unorganized militia.

Others have explained the historical background; back in the day, if war were to break out, members of the unorganized militia were expected to show up at the local recruiting office (or even on the battlefield) and either sign up with (or fight alongside) the organized militia. 

The "well-regulated" bit basically meant that it's preferable to sign up, but that you can't have a well-regulated militia if nobody had firearms to bring to the recruiting office.  That part's admittedly an anachronism, but there's no reason it has to remain one.  All we'd need to do is get rid of our standing army, and let the ensuing cost savings pay for almost half of Social Security's unfunded liabilities!  And it's not like the Founding Fathers were particularly fond of standing armies.  Most of them found the notion repellent. The present trillion-dollar debacle in the Gulf is the textbook example of their point -- that having a large standing army could someday provide a nation's political leaders with an irresistable temptation to use it, just because it was there.  WW2 and the Cold War provide powerful counterexamples; in these cases, the world ended up a better place (and we wound up much better off) as a result of our standing army. 

Having no standing army, but only a militia upon which to draw for troops, gives a nation the ability to defend itself against invasion, but no ability to project power beyond its own borders.  The 60s protest slogan "What if they gave a war, and no one came?" was the original failsafe built into the Constitution, and it's entirely dependent on the concept of the civil militia.  (As is the post-Vietnam, post-draft concept of the volunteer army.)

We can debate the merits of standing armies 'till the cows come home, but the bottom line is that most of the people reading this are in the militia, whether they know it or not.

I fired some rounds from it, one from a standard upright hunting position (I've got a Polaroid of it somewhere). It was quite hard to hold something so damned heavy, and the recoil was similar to jogging into a building shoulder first.
Ant


Yeah... firing a .50 from a standing position is not a real good idea.  ;D

The American people are the militia.


No, the U.S. Military and the National Guard is.  (The National Guard IS the state militia)  I believe that was one of the reasons that the folks of Ruby Ridge stated.

Hooray for the one time murder capitol of the U.S.  There was a reason for the ban.  Gun totters and the NRA won out.

Not really...  I'd argue common sense won.  D.C. had a citywide handgun ban for 32 years.  There has not been an appreciable drop in gun deaths there.

The reason for this is simple.  Baltimore does not have a citywide gun ban.  When you live in an area as central to a major metropolitan area as D.C., a handgun ban is simply not feasible.  Also, if you take into account the relative ease at which you can get a gun in Virginia, again, the ban in D.C. is utterly ludicrous.

Not really...  I'd argue common sense won.  D.C. had a citywide handgun ban for 32 years.  There has not been an appreciable drop in gun deaths there.

The reason for this is simple.  Baltimore does not have a citywide gun ban.  When you live in an area as central to a major metropolitan area as D.C., a handgun ban is simply not feasible.  Also, if you take into account the relative ease at which you can get a gun in Virginia, again, the ban in D.C. is utterly ludicrous.




What is the purpose of having a gun in a metropolitan area?  I can understand self protection to an extent.  However, the possibility of an innocent bystander being shot is pretty significant.  As for D.C. one of the reasons for the ban was because it is the nation's capital.  You're right though the numbers haven't dropped that much.

I would like to add that Lyric's logic is flawed in one important respect.

As Red mentioned, automatic weapons of the size and power that Lyric was interested in will never be cheap for the simple fact that, even if they became legal for civilian use without any regulations attached, I doubt you'd find many people buying them.  There is a transition period for supply to lower price that would not occur with such weapons because not many people would be willing to pay the current amounts required for these weapons due to a lack of use for them.

In other words, initially, the prices for these weapons would remain the same as they are today.  Not many people are willing to pay thousands for weapons they'd rarely ever use.  You can't exactly walk around with a machine gun without attracting police attention, even if it was legal to do so.  Even walking around with a handgun visible on you will often get suspicious looks at you from police.  ...and don't even think you can conceal and carry most fully automatic heavy weapons, unless you're wearing a huge trenchcoat (which might attract attention anyway).

So, I don't think there'd be much fear of a bunch of people packing heavy heat even if it was legal to do so, although you might end up with certain mentally unstable people buying it.  The only gun control I support involves background checks and psychological checks.  If you're a felon or mentally unstable, I don't think you should have a gun, but if you're not a felon and are without any psychological problems, then by all means, arm yourself.

What is the purpose of having a gun in a metropolitan area?  I can understand self protection to an extent.  However, the possibility of an innocent bystander being shot is pretty significant.  As for D.C. one of the reasons for the ban was because it is the nation's capital.  You're right though the numbers haven't dropped that much.


In D.C., it's a matter of protecting yourself.  If you live on the bad side of town and can't afford to move, then you're gonna need a gun.  I already got one here, and I'm on an ok side of my town, but my brother has already been robbed at gunpoint once and had his stereo stolen out of his car.  You don't even wanna know what the bad side of Greensboro is like.

The sad truth about American life is that most of us live in areas where crime is significant enough that a gun is necessary for protection.  There's a reason why I bring a gun with me to Walmart and why I never go there alone.  My brother was also robbed there at knife point (before we had a gun).

In D.C., it's a matter of protecting yourself.  If you live on the bad side of town and can't afford to move, then you're gonna need a gun.  I already got one here, and I'm on an ok side of my town, but my brother has already been robbed at gunpoint once and had his stereo stolen out of his car.  You don't even wanna know what the bad side of Greensboro is like.

The sad truth about American life is that most of us live in areas where crime is significant enough that a gun is necessary for protection.  There's a reason why I bring a gun with me to Walmart and why I never go there alone.  My brother was also robbed there at knife point (before we had a gun).


I have relatives who live in D.C. so I've heard.  Yes, you do need a gun to protect yourself in bad parts of town.  I also realize that it's come to the point of where teachers want to brings guns to school for protection.  I just think it's so easy to pull a trigger not realizing that this may unnecessarily kill someone.  Guns don't kill, people do.

I have relatives who live in D.C. so I've heard.  Yes, you do need a gun to protect yourself in bad parts of town.  I also realize that it's come to the point of where teachers want to brings guns to school for protection.  I just think it's so easy to pull a trigger not realizing that this may unnecessarily kill someone.  Guns don't kill, people do.


Agreed... but I'd rather give people the choice to defend themselves.  While giving them such options may result in unnecessary deaths, I'd rather risk that than not even give them the option of protecting themselves.

Now, schools are a different matter.  Most inner city schools already have cops on campus, so I don't see a need for guns there.  Colleges might need them though -- or at least...  let college students carry tazers.

One reason (IMHO) Washington is dangerous because of easy targets...the Politicians.

Remember the sniper incident?

One reason (IMHO) Washington is dangerous because of easy targets...the Politicians.

Remember the sniper incident?


However no politicians were victims of the snipers.  They were shooting people at random.

I would like to add that Lyric's logic is flawed in one important respect.

As Red mentioned, automatic weapons of the size and power that Lyric was interested in will never be cheap for the simple fact that, even if they became legal for civilian use without any regulations attached, I doubt you'd find many people buying them.  There is a transition period for supply to lower price that would not occur with such weapons because not many people would be willing to pay the current amounts required for these weapons due to a lack of use for them.



Where did you get this idea? 

There are hundreds of millions of fully-automatic weapons available in the world today, the low price is already there everywhere but the US of A.  You realize that they sell cheapie (albeit black market) kits to convert semiautomatic AR15's and AK-47's (and the many AK variants) to full auto?

You do not need to have a finely crafted machine gun like a Thompson M-1, nor an exotic weapon like a Dillon Minigun to have a fully automatic weapon.

Hell, back in the Depression (before the 1934 law banning them), machine guns could be bought in hardware stores and out of catalogues.

Here in my home town I know LOTS of people who would gladly buy a machine gun, just to shoot up the woods!!!  8)

Where did you get this idea? 

There are hundreds of millions of fully-automatic weapons available in the world today, the low price is already there everywhere but the US of A.  You realize that they sell cheapie (albeit black market) kits to convert semiautomatic AR15's and AK-47's (and the many AK variants) to full auto?

You do not need to have a finely crafted machine gun like a Thompson M-1, nor an exotic weapon like a Dillon Minigun to have a fully automatic weapon.

Hell, back in the Depression (before the 1934 law banning them), machine guns could be bought in hardware stores and out of catalogues.

Here in my home town I know LOTS of people who would gladly buy a machine gun, just to shoot up the woods!!!  8)


Fair points.  I'm just saying that I don't think the market will ever reach a point where the average person is going to buy a 50mm machinegun.  An AK-47, yes, but not something resembling a turret.

I'm kind of indifferent to allowing an ordinary citizen to buy a 50mm machinegun.  Even if it is allowed, only a few people will be able to afford one, and you can bet the police will keep a close eye on them (for good reason).

No, the U.S. Military and the National Guard is.  (The National Guard IS the state militia)  I believe that was one of the reasons that the folks of Ruby Ridge stated.


Fail.  Read your state's constitution.  Just google for phrases like "The militia shall consist of", and the name of your state.

By law, the US Military and National Guard is the organized militia.  By that very same law, the unorganized militia is everyone else of fighting age and/or citizenship.  That distinction is important.

(As for the survivalist nuts, they conveniently forget about the thousands of laws that exist to point out that members of the unorganized militia - or anyone else - have no right to shoot at the organized militia.)

But I'm glad you brought up that case, because it illustrates the problems that arise when common language and legal language differ.  People seem to think that the word "militia" means some sort of organized fighting force.  It doesn't.  It means "the body of citizens capable of fighting".  That's it.  Nothing more.  (If you support the draft, you could shorten it to "the pool of citizens eligible for the draft", which was the other solution to the problem of what happens if they give a war and nobody from the unorganized militia shows up to join the organized one and take their marching orders...)

The other example of this phenomenon is how creationists use the common language definition of "theory" as some wild-ass speculation that someone invented, ("Evolution's just a theory!"), rather than "a hypothesis that has been tested and which has been consistently supported by the observed data" ("Of course evolution's a theory!  So is Newtonian gravitation, and Einstein's theories of general and special relativity!  They're not perfect, but they're the best tools we have with which to understand the universe.")

Fail.  Read your state's constitution.  Just google for phrases like "The militia shall consist of", and the name of your state.

By law, the US Military and National Guard is the organized militia.  By that very same law, the unorganized militia is everyone else of fighting age and/or citizenship.  That distinction is important.

(As for the survivalist nuts, they conveniently forget about the thousands of laws that exist to point out that members of the unorganized militia - or anyone else - have no right to shoot at the organized militia.)

But I'm glad you brought up that case, because it illustrates the problems that arise when common language and legal language differ.  People seem to think that the word "militia" means some sort of organized fighting force.  It doesn't.  It means "the body of citizens capable of fighting".  That's it.  Nothing more.  (If you support the draft, you could shorten it to "the pool of citizens eligible for the draft", which was the other solution to the problem of what happens if they give a war and nobody from the unorganized militia shows up to join the organized one and take their marching orders...)

The other example of this phenomenon is how creationists use the common language definition of "theory" as some wild-ass speculation that someone invented, ("Evolution's just a theory!"), rather than "a hypothesis that has been tested and which has been consistently supported by the observed data" ("Of course evolution's a theory!  So is Newtonian gravitation, and Einstein's theories of general and special relativity!  They're not perfect, but they're the best tools we have with which to understand the universe.")

Good points all around.

The way I figure it is if you need a gun to protect you from the government, it's already too dayum late!  You might ice a couple of marshals, but you do that and they come back in greater numbers.  WTF, even if you and your entire neighborhood join together armed to the teeth, you're still not going to have the kind antipersonnel weapons Uncle Sam's own militia has! That is, they'll just get you with the missles.  If you can beat out the DOD in the missles department, maybe you stand a fighting chance!

Going a little off-topic, I totally agree with the Creotionism vs. Evolution.  Remember when Indiana Jones says, "Archeology is the search for fact not truth"?  Science is about figuring stuff out and not about Ultimate Truth.  If you want to postulate that a single cell turns out to be so complex it must be created by a greater intilligent force," then establish and prove the existence of this force, and ask it what greater intelligent force created the Creator!

Faith is a beautiful thing if that's your trip.  I'm not knocking faith.  I'm just saying science is not a threat to the power of faith as there will always be a metaphysical realm at Homosapiens Sapien's level of consciousness.  However, science always asks of science students to "prove it."  This is a threat to the power of an unquestionable authority, which is how conservatives see God.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/whip2.gif

Fair points.  I'm just saying that I don't think the market will ever reach a point where the average person is going to buy a 50mm machinegun.  An AK-47, yes, but not something resembling a turret.

I'm kind of indifferent to allowing an ordinary citizen to buy a 50mm machinegun.  Even if it is allowed, only a few people will be able to afford one, and you can bet the police will keep a close eye on them (for good reason).


I agree with you both for a .50 caliber machine gun (such as the M2 "Ma Deuce") as well as a 50mm which would fall into the realm of a "small repeating artillery piece".

The ammo cost would kill more people than the projectiles themselves!  ;D

However no politicians were victims of the snipers.  They were shooting people at random.


Never mind...but after the J.F.K. assasination, it seemed that a President was more protected. (Even though three assasination attempts did occur in 1977, 1981, and 2005.)

Fail.  Read your state's constitution.  Just google for phrases like "The militia shall consist of", and the name of your state.

By law, the US Military and National Guard is the organized militia.  By that very same law, the unorganized militia is everyone else of fighting age and/or citizenship.  That distinction is important.

(As for the survivalist nuts, they conveniently forget about the thousands of laws that exist to point out that members of the unorganized militia - or anyone else - have no right to shoot at the organized militia.)

But I'm glad you brought up that case, because it illustrates the problems that arise when common language and legal language differ.  People seem to think that the word "militia" means some sort of organized fighting force.  It doesn't.  It means "the body of citizens capable of fighting".  That's it.  Nothing more.  (If you support the draft, you could shorten it to "the pool of citizens eligible for the draft", which was the other solution to the problem of what happens if they give a war and nobody from the unorganized militia shows up to join the organized one and take their marching orders...)

The other example of this phenomenon is how creationists use the common language definition of "theory" as some wild-ass speculation that someone invented, ("Evolution's just a theory!"), rather than "a hypothesis that has been tested and which has been consistently supported by the observed data" ("Of course evolution's a theory!  So is Newtonian gravitation, and Einstein's theories of general and special relativity!  They're not perfect, but they're the best tools we have with which to understand the universe.")


Unorganized Militia has a tendency to be chaotic and counter productive for the welfare of a nation.  Remember a little thing called the American Civil War?  The Confederacy was fighting for state's rights.  That pretty much ended things for civilian militias being an entity of a particular state. 

You're right though about too many thing being left up to interpretation.  It's convenient when you can make it fit an agenda be it right or wrong.

Never mind...but after the J.F.K. assasination, it seemed that a President was more protected. (Even though three assasination attempts did occur in 1977, 1981, and 2005.)


You didn't specifically say anything about Presidential assassinations.  I thought you meant the two guys are known as the "D.C. snipers". :-\\

  If you can beat out the DOD in the missles department, maybe you stand a fighting chance!


Hey, that's what I said in 2003.  The Iraqis proved me wrong.


Unorganized Militia has a tendency to be chaotic and counter productive for the welfare of a nation.  Remember a little thing called the American Civil War?  The Confederacy was fighting for state's rights.  That pretty much ended things for civilian militias being an entity of a particular state.


True enough; the Civil War ended that debate - States exist by virtue of the Federal government, but that didn't stop civilian militas from existing.  (Although it made it pretty darn clear that when the military shows up in your town and asks a random civilian to jump, the correct response is "How High", and not to use the word "Sir" unless you're talking to an officer, because privates, corporals, and sergeants work for a living :-) 

I'd be the first to admit that the distinction is a legal technicality and arguably an anachronism.  But to the extent that we're still a nation of laws, rather than a nation of men's whims, those legal technicalities and anachronisms still count for something.  It's the sort of stuff that Supreme Court justices and armchair landsharks in any nation live for :)

Pop Quiz:  Are your local police "civilians" or not?  If not, what are they?  I'd argue they're the closest thing to the unorganized militia still going.  You - even if you're not a cop - can place another guy under citizen's arrest.  The only real difference is that the police department, by virtue of its training of its employees, gets cut a lot of slack in court (and knows the rules inside and out so that it rarely, if ever, gets sued, and if it does get sued, the case is gonna come up in front of a judge who's already in the police department's back pocket), and you won't (and you don't, so you will get sued no matter what you do, and it'll cost you a fortune to defend yourself in court).  But legally, there's not much difference between Joe Sixpack and Officer Sixpack.  The only difference is that the people elect Sheriff Twelvepack and entrust him with the duty of choosing who gets the badge that changes "Joe" into "Officer" or "Deputy".  But both cops and non-cops are civilians.

Well, yeah, they built all those great nukes in the '80s.  We could have wiped out every last one 'em by now!
:o

Well, yeah, they built all those great nukes in the '80s.  We could have wiped out every last one 'em by now! :o


But we didn't.  Why not? 

That answer applies domestically as well as abroad.  Not even Sherman's March to the Sea comes close.

But we didn't.  Why not? 

That answer applies domestically as well as abroad.  Not even Sherman's March to the Sea comes close.

Why not? Because you don't go dropping nukes on a nation without starting WWIII!  We managed to keep ourselves un-blown-up for 63 years, I'd hate to see us lose it now!  It's debatable whether you can win a land war in Asia; however, it is certain you can't cut taxes and run indefinitely on a volunteer army...
::)

Why not? Because you don't go dropping nukes on a nation without starting WWIII!  We managed to keep ourselves un-blown-up for 63 years, I'd hate to see us lose it now!  It's debatable whether you can win a land war in Asia; however, it is certain you can't cut taxes and run indefinitely on a volunteer army... ::)


No, "why not" is "because even though we're a police state, we're still a civilized one".  Call me an optimist, but I don't believe the people turning the keys would obey an order to launch a nuclear against the continental US.  (I'm not totally pollyana here; I believe leaders from either party would order such a strike if they thought it was the only means to maintain power.  I have enough shreds of faith in our military that I think the guys turning the keys, and their immediate superiors at least to the level of the people controlling the bases or vessels from which such a strike would be launched, would regard such an order as unlawful, and would rightly choose not to follow it.)

As for running a war on a volunteer army?  We actually could have.  Problem is, we don't have a volunteer army.  We have a mercenary army.  We're paying mercenaries $200K/year to do the sorts of things (hauling fuel over hostile territory, kitchen patrol, etc) that we'd ordinarily pay privates $20K/year to do.

A Blackwater merc can say "$20K to drive a truck in Iraq?  Fark that.  You offered me $100K/year to do it in America.  I won't do it for a penny less than $200K/year in Iraq, and if that ain't good enough, go ahead and fire me and find someone who will."  The Soldier (or Marine, or, oddly for driving fuel trucks over land, an Airman or Seaman) doesn't have the luxury of saying "no".  He hauls the fuel where he's told for $20K/year, no matter who's shooting at him, and if he doesn't like it, there's always the stockade (or brig).

Privatizing these non-combat/logistical functions made some sense during peacetime; if the mission is to haul a truckload of fuel from Florida to California, one $100K/year privatized truck driver is well-incentivized to outperform the ten $20K/year privates who might be tasked to drive the same truck through their respective congressional districts.  But it's a crappy (the supplies don't get delivered) and expensive (if they do get delivered, it's at a prohibitive cost) way to fight a war. 

And we've learned that the hard way.  We were never paying ten privates $20K/year to haul fuel from Florida to California; we were paying them $2k/year to haul fuel from Florida to California, and the other $18K/year for the right to order ("order, on penalty of imprisonment for insubordination", not "politely ask, on penalty of you get fired and find a better job next week") them to haul it across a battlefield.  Mercenaries could be a cost-effective way of doing surgical strikes, but they're a cost-prohibitive way of taking and holding territory.  The doctrine of transformation relied on the former, and ignored the possibility of the latter, and we, as taxpayers, (and our troops, as targets) were left holding the bag.