3 ms·

I don't think "pay enormous cost for a 20 year old firearm, get permission from the local law enforcement (which won't be granted to anyone in California who is

by strlen 13y ago

I don't think "pay enormous cost for a 20 year old firearm, get permission from the local law enforcement (which won't be granted to anyone in California who isn't a Hollywood producer), wait for the federal paper work for several months, pay additional fees" is "perfectly". Even prior to 1986 FOPA amendment, the number of people who actually owned such firearms was low -- but then again, they were only used in two crimes, in both cases by police officers. Most people who take advantage of this are collectors and movie makers. As for me, I'll pass on jumping through enormous hoops only to buy a machine that turns money into noise: ask a member of the US armed forces how many times he's actually used the M4 or M16 in fully auto or even burst as opposed to semi-auto. This is reflected in the M16/AR-15 design: they aren't designed for "spray and pray", they're designed for carefully aimed and disciplined fire in semi-auto mode (with occasional full-auto bursts for supressive fire or against metal armour). > I personally think not. Is there really a difference between hand grenades and automatic rifles? Again, I personally think not. Well for starters, go to a range that rents automatics (like one in Las Vegas), shoot a fully automatic rifle, and then put it down. Then, pull the pin on a hand-grenade, drop the hand-grenade next you, and then stand in place :-) [No, I don't actually encourage you to do this]. Or you may want to consider why police cruisers have rifles (albeit semi-automatics) but not (explosive) grenades -- rifles are person-to-person weapons, grenades are effectively area/anti-materiel weapons. (Random note: When I lived in USSR, my school PE classes actually included "grenade toss" -- you'd toss a stick grenade filled with inert substance -- as a sport; it's quite challenging.) I think the difference is immense, they're completely different kinds of weapons -- first of all hand grenades, aren't technically arms if you use the definition of arms used when the constitution was written. They would not be protected by the second amendment even if fully automatic weapons were. Fully automatic weapons on the other hand aren't protected for the same reason "shouting fire in a crowded theater" (as much as I hate this phrase...) isn't protected, grenades are not protected for the same reason that setting fire to a theater isn't protected. While this isn't tested, semi-auto rifles, are almost certainly protected -- as they're owned by civilians in great numbers (unlike hand grenades or automatic rifles) and compare to pistols (demonstrated per case law to be protected by second amendment) are far less frequently used in homicides (despite there being more rifles/shotguns in circulation than pistols). This certainly passes the "unusual and dangerous test" used in Heller to rule out automatic rifles, hand-grenades, missiles, nukes, etc... and all the other frequently asserted strawmen. I'll point you at an excellent book that offers a far more nuanced reading of the second amendment than either side wants to admit -- http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/0393345831 http://www.amazon.com/Gunfight-Battle-Over-Right-America/dp/... -- including the discussion of what militia means (which is different from what it means in Switzerland, although not entirely unrelated)

swalkergibson 13y ago
> [F]irst of all hand grenades, aren't technically arms if you use the definition of arms used when the constitution was written This is the crux of the entire argument to me. The spirit of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to violently overthrow the federal government if they become too powerful, as a last-resort measure. The weapons that the colonists were fighting against were 3 rounds per minute muskets and single-shot cannons, not Apache attack helicopters. Is there a really a regulatory framework that could conceivably exist that would allow for ordinary, private citizens to overthrow the full might of the US military while protecting society from wanton gun violence?
- strlen 13y ago
  > This is the crux of the entire argument to me. The spirit of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to violently overthrow the federal government if they become too powerful, as a last-resort measure. That's actually not the case. Militia meant "every able bodied white male and sometimes freed blacks" (a more expansive definition than eligible voters -- as there were still property qualifications for voting), who are meant to be armed with common civilian firearms they would purchase themselves. They could be asked to show up at a "muster" by the government, but the second amendment explicitly protected the individual right of militia members originally from federal government (later on, via 14th amendment, this was extended to the states as well as well as to anyone who is not a felon, mentally ill, etc...). It certainly recognized the right to use these firearms for hunting and self-defense. The common musket at the time -- The Brown Bess -- was smooth bore with a 0.75" caliber and a bead sight, i.e., a 12 gauge shotgun. It could be loaded with buck shoot, with a musket ball, or (as very common) "buck and ball". So it served both the purposes of militia service weapon, for hunting many kinds of game (which wasn't a luxury, but often a necessity), and self-defence (against both humans and wild animals). Ancestors of modern hand grenades ("bombs"), artillery, and so on all existed at the time -- but were not commonly owned by civilians. Rather than try my hand at constitutional scholarship, I'll go by the legal theory behind the Heller decision for this. More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/justice-scalia-goes-gun-crazy.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/justice-sca... Honestly, I'll go on record and say that this is good: violent overthrow of the government worked well for the American colonists precisely because they were colonists. The Monarchist loyalists could simply leave, whereas in France, they could only do so sans the head. The stakes were much smaller, so the American revolution (or really "the first American civil war") did not lead to the horrible outcomes other violent revolutions have almost exclusively lead to. Today, the results would be far far worse -- rather than a blossoming of civil liberties, it would mean revolutionary terror, followed by an even longer period of counter-revolutionary terror. If this happens, I'll definitely want to be armed, however -- to defend myself and my family from any of the factions involved in either the revolution or the counter-revolution as I make my way to the nearest port of entry of a peaceful country. Private armies (those reading the "militia" to mean militia groups as opposed to what it actually means) are an even scarier idea. Not to Godwin this, but it reminds me of Freikorps, SA, as well as KPD/SPD armed groups, and other (sometimes state sponsored, sometimes not) street thugs of Weimar Germany.

by strlen 13y ago

swalkergibson 13y ago

> [F]irst of all hand grenades, aren't technically arms if you use the definition of arms used when the constitution was written This is the crux of the entire argument to me. The spirit of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to violently overthrow the federal government if they become too powerful, as a last-resort measure. The weapons that the colonists were fighting against were 3 rounds per minute muskets and single-shot cannons, not Apache attack helicopters. Is there a really a regulatory framework that could conceivably exist that would allow for ordinary, private citizens to overthrow the full might of the US military while protecting society from wanton gun violence?

strlen 13y ago
> This is the crux of the entire argument to me. The spirit of the second amendment is to allow the citizenry to violently overthrow the federal government if they become too powerful, as a last-resort measure. That's actually not the case. Militia meant "every able bodied white male and sometimes freed blacks" (a more expansive definition than eligible voters -- as there were still property qualifications for voting), who are meant to be armed with common civilian firearms they would purchase themselves. They could be asked to show up at a "muster" by the government, but the second amendment explicitly protected the individual right of militia members originally from federal government (later on, via 14th amendment, this was extended to the states as well as well as to anyone who is not a felon, mentally ill, etc...). It certainly recognized the right to use these firearms for hunting and self-defense. The common musket at the time -- The Brown Bess -- was smooth bore with a 0.75" caliber and a bead sight, i.e., a 12 gauge shotgun. It could be loaded with buck shoot, with a musket ball, or (as very common) "buck and ball". So it served both the purposes of militia service weapon, for hunting many kinds of game (which wasn't a luxury, but often a necessity), and self-defence (against both humans and wild animals). Ancestors of modern hand grenades ("bombs"), artillery, and so on all existed at the time -- but were not commonly owned by civilians. Rather than try my hand at constitutional scholarship, I'll go by the legal theory behind the Heller decision for this. More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/justice-scalia-goes-gun-crazy.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/justice-sca... Honestly, I'll go on record and say that this is good: violent overthrow of the government worked well for the American colonists precisely because they were colonists. The Monarchist loyalists could simply leave, whereas in France, they could only do so sans the head. The stakes were much smaller, so the American revolution (or really "the first American civil war") did not lead to the horrible outcomes other violent revolutions have almost exclusively lead to. Today, the results would be far far worse -- rather than a blossoming of civil liberties, it would mean revolutionary terror, followed by an even longer period of counter-revolutionary terror. If this happens, I'll definitely want to be armed, however -- to defend myself and my family from any of the factions involved in either the revolution or the counter-revolution as I make my way to the nearest port of entry of a peaceful country. Private armies (those reading the "militia" to mean militia groups as opposed to what it actually means) are an even scarier idea. Not to Godwin this, but it reminds me of Freikorps, SA, as well as KPD/SPD armed groups, and other (sometimes state sponsored, sometimes not) street thugs of Weimar Germany.