2nd Amendment Militia Clause

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
OK cybrsage, I will bite, if we are to have no guns restrictions at all, where does it stop? Shall we allow anyone to buy bazookas, tanks, large caliber artillery pieces, and even poison gas. Or how about 500 pound bombs and the planes to carry them. Or even better yet, that heavy machine gun kit you can mount on the bed of your pickup truck.

To the delight of any wanna be nut, terrorist or criminal.

And where is the well regulated clause militia of the second amendment when no governmental entity, be it local, State, or Federal, is able to regulate private individuals.

But then again, cybrsage, corwin, and cwjerome, if you don't like the Federal regulations of firearms, you are free to move to governments that are more in line with the NRA way of thinking. Nations like Afghanistan, Mexico, Somalia, North Korea, who allow the people to possess alkl the firearms they can obtain, as they should all be paragons of social stability just as our NRA envisions.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
But then again, cybrsage, corwin, and cwjerome, if you don't like the Federal regulations of firearms, you are free to move to governments that are more in line with the NRA way of thinking. Nations like Afghanistan, Mexico, Somalia, North Korea, who allow the people to possess alkl the firearms they can obtain, as they should all be paragons of social stability just as our NRA envisions.

I didn't say anything about not wanting federal regulations, I am simply baffled by your immense stupidity by bringing up hunting in a 2nd Amendment thread, then saying AR-15s (.223/5.56) aren't any good for hunting, then going on about .22s for some reason as if there was any relationship whatsoever between that and the .223, and then saying places like Mexico and North Korea allow their people to possess all the firearms they can obtain. It's one completely, shamefully, dumb thing after another. You do not have any idea of what you're saying and it shows, let people with some intelligence speak on the matter.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Nations like Afghanistan, Mexico, Somalia, North Korea, who allow the people to possess alkl the firearms they can obtain, as they should all be paragons of social stability just as our NRA envisions.

- Mexico has extremely strict gun laws
- North Korea does not allow any civilian ownership of firearms
- Civilian ownership of firearms in Afghanistan served the people very well during the Soviet and American invasions

As for Somalia, I fail to see how the abundance of firearms has anything to do with the various civil wars they had. The clans rebelled against communist rule. Civilian ownership of firearms allowed them to do that. I guess some people can argue that a communist dictatorship means "social stability". I would disagree.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
That and the fact the AR-15 .223 caliber is illegal for hunting animals larger than woodchucks in all 50 states. makes the Bushmaster assault rifle useless for legitimate hunting as its only useful for killing human beings.

First of all, that simply is not true that its illegal to use, specifically for deerhunting, in all 50 states unless you are talking about some really fucking big woodchucks. Secondly, you haven't argued that its an ineffective round at medium game hunting simply that it isn't legal which isn't a valid argument imo.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
OK cybrsage, I will bite, if we are to have no guns restrictions at all, where does it stop? Shall we allow anyone to buy bazookas, tanks, large caliber artillery pieces, and even poison gas. Or how about 500 pound bombs and the planes to carry them. Or even better yet, that heavy machine gun kit you can mount on the bed of your pickup truck.

To the delight of any wanna be nut, terrorist or criminal.

And where is the well regulated clause militia of the second amendment when no governmental entity, be it local, State, or Federal, is able to regulate private individuals.

But then again, cybrsage, corwin, and cwjerome, if you don't like the Federal regulations of firearms, you are free to move to governments that are more in line with the NRA way of thinking. Nations like Afghanistan, Mexico, Somalia, North Korea, who allow the people to possess alkl the firearms they can obtain, as they should all be paragons of social stability just as our NRA envisions.

Good lord, do you bother to fact check ANYTHING you say concerning guns???? Mexico allows their citizens to possess all the firearms they want is blatantly and absurdly false. Either it is an intentional lie or you are just completely pulling shit out of your ass, either way it severely discounts any other arguments you have and will make on the topic considering this is the 2nd blatantly false and easily verifiable piece of information you have posted in this thread.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
OK cybrsage, I will bite, if we are to have no guns restrictions at all, where does it stop? Shall we allow anyone to buy bazookas, tanks, large caliber artillery pieces, and even poison gas. Or how about 500 pound bombs and the planes to carry them. Or even better yet, that heavy machine gun kit you can mount on the bed of your pickup truck.

To the delight of any wanna be nut, terrorist or criminal.

And where is the well regulated clause militia of the second amendment when no governmental entity, be it local, State, or Federal, is able to regulate private individuals.

But then again, cybrsage, corwin, and cwjerome, if you don't like the Federal regulations of firearms, you are free to move to governments that are more in line with the NRA way of thinking. Nations like Afghanistan, Mexico, Somalia, North Korea, who allow the people to possess alkl the firearms they can obtain, as they should all be paragons of social stability just as our NRA envisions.
Just when I thought you couldn't say anything less true you pull this crap out...my god do you really believe your own lies?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe thank you for your assessment of my sanity as you totally change the argument I made.

(1) Even if my information may be dated, not a singe state in the US will allow the use of a .22 caliber rifle to hunt deer. As mostly the minimum legal caliber for deer hunting is .24 or greater.

(2) Nor did I say, that 0.22 caliber weapons are totally useless for legitimate hunting, as the 20'th century firearms industry has spawned a huge developments in all ranges of legitimate firearms hunting weapons of all calibers. But to just concentrate on the class of .22 caliber hunting weapons, we can start with the rim fire .22 short, the rim fire .22 long, and the rim fire long rifle. As the .22 rim fire long rifle achieves a whole 1335 feet per second with a 40 grain bullet. Too slow to achieve any descent mid-range trajectory and because such bullets lose energy so fast due to a poor ballistic co-efficient, they have little use for even wood chuck sized game beyond about 65 yards. The next development in the .22 caliber cartridges was the .222 center fire cartridges that doubled the velocity a heavier bullet bullet that lost energy far slower. And even today, its the cartridge of choice for competitive bench rest shooters at ranges under 200 yards with bolt action rifles. Where 5 shoot groups at a 100 yards under 0.5 inches separate the men from the boys. Nor did the .22 development stop there, as larger cartridges like the 22.250 and even the .220 swift pushed velocities up to 4000 feet per second. But to achieve any reasonable accuracy required a bolt action rifle and a well bedded barrel. True also of larger calibers.

(3) As you cwjerome, have IMHO , have dishonestly changed the question. As legitimate firearms owners can take pride in their accuracy in aiming rifles and pistols in legitimate hunting use. The basic one shot one kill. Failing that maybe another shot may be required. Or even three. But to allow some idiot to spray ill aimed bullets from large magazines containing 10, 20, and 30 or more clips, has no use in legitimate hunting.

As such large magazine capacity is only useful for military use to kill people. And if we as a society allow every nut to possess such weapons they can kill too many people in unit time before they are stopped. As my objection lies in the legitimacy of super large magazines.


.22LR versus .223...... Tad bit of difference so I don't know why you are trying to compare the two or if you are just changing the subject.

22_penny_223-tfb.jpg
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
If you look at it in the context of the time, and compare to other documents, it becomes more clear. For example, look at the Virginia Declaration of Rights, upon which much of the US BOR was based. In part:

The language is more clear in this case.

The guarantee of individual rights is also often spelled out at the state level in other states.

It sounds like this is saying you should also disband the army and the militia should consist of the army reserves.

If you want a gun, fine, you can have one, but you have to join the reserves to get it.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Also, isn't the amendment contradictory? It says that the militia should be "well regulated" but that rights "shall not be infringed".
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Wow! Thank you kindly for the link. I had never heard of that, it is truly an awesome story and is exactly why our founders put the 2nd amendment in the Bill Of Rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you Darwin bought NRA propaganda hook line and sinker. As the founders of our country thought quire differently. As they had an justifiable fear that our Federal government with a required Federally controlled standing army would overwhelm States rights, and in so doing, no counteracting force would exist. Which is why they inserted the well regulated militia to allow each State to have a their own standing army too. And as State after state was admitted to the union, it worked out quite well until the civil war. But if a non state regulated rouge militia emerged, like in Shay's rebellion, both the State and Federal armies would combine to crush it.

And in 1861 the idea was really tested, as the " confederate " States combined State militias and asserted their right to succeed from the Union. As we all know the outcome of the the civil war. But it still defined two principles. (1) The Federal governments powers trumped States rights militarily but not politically. (2) The Federal government did not disband State militias that now form the core of our national guard. As such national guards are often the best state wide force best able to respond to local natural disasters. Or to become part of our Federal army in times of war. As such forces are well regulated, well trained, and allowed to receive both State and national funding under the command of each individual State government.

As for the individual hunter, it was never really part of the constitutional argument as guns became useful tool as the American people moved every Westward. And changed the entire American ecology in the process. As forests were cut down to become farms, pushing the Native American Indians ever Westward in the process. And by post civil war times the environmental changes accelerated with rail road building. As the American hunter slew the vast herds of American Bison, our ranchers poisoned out the wolves, coyotes, and all predictors that used to keep the environment balanced. As job accomplished the American had little game left to hunt by AD 1900. As environmental groups and hunting advocacy groups like the Previous NRA came together to advocate sensible hunting laws. Bag limits, parkland set asides, that made the American hunter a self sustaining force. And during the lawless days of prohibition of alcohol when the American criminal delivered what the people wanted, again the NRA rose up to make illegal machine guns and other firearms useful for only criminals and not legitimate hunters.

At the same time, certain game animals proved to be remarkable resilient. While others went the way of the dodo. As deer, non existent in my state of Indiana in 1930, are back in abundance, and becoming threats on our highways, As the ever resilient coyote sings to me at night. And adapt well to almost ever city in the USA. Simply because we have removed the large predictor and now nature is out of of balance. As Canadian geese, a formerly rare game animal has seen a similar population explosion. Sadly in my Indiana area, the quail and pheasant I used to enjoy hunting 30 years ago have vanished due to the severe winters of the late 1970 and the clear cut farming methods that deny them any winter cover. As at least the legitimate American hunter can still fulfill the role the other large predictors we used to have.

Or we can talk about Mexico, even if Mexican gun laws prohibit private gun ownership. But due to a too large Mexican criminal class who can buy automatic too easily, Mexico is now totally out of control. As the criminals are far better armed than the cops.

As my other legitimate fear centers around Governmental regulators like Senator Dianne and her ilk, who know nothing about legitimate firearm use as their knee jerk reaction to confiscate all guns no matter which. And if the now politicized NRA can't get real and become part of a rational part of gun regulation, Senator Dianne and her ilk will win as school and irrational gun violence become an even greater until a irrational ban is unstopable
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Also, isn't the amendment contradictory? It says that the militia should be "well regulated" but that rights "shall not be infringed".
It only seems contradictory if you do not understand what "well regulated" meant at the time and indeed, still means today in one sense. A well regulated generator for instance is not a generator highly bound by bureaucracy's regulations; an alternator's regulator does not in fact watch the alternator to make sure it obeys current EPA guidelines. You can also see this in the debate at the time the Bill of Rights was passed. Politicians were not calling for government to have more control over the militia, they were calling for the militia to have more drill training, uniforms (so they know for sure who not to shoot), and uniformity in arms to aid logistics - it's a freakin' nightmare when everyone shows up with a different gun firing different caliber balls and requiring different (often unique) spare parts. In this way the militia could operate more efficiently - i.e. be better regulated.

But have no fear, no one is proposing to make Canucks stand on their hind legs. Feel free to wait for a Mountie when threatened; we promise not to let our individual liberty spill over and get between you and the queen. ;)
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Additional quotes and citations for those who care:


http://www.savetheguns.com/quotes.htm#.UN4PwG9Tyy4
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Note also the contemporary (to our Founding Fathers) debate within England. Historically a free man was allowed the use of arms for his own defense, whereas an unfree man was not and was therefore dependent upon his master for defense of himself and his family. Indeed, our concept of the free militia comes from England, where government mandated that free men own arms and be proficient in their use. However, by the eighteenth century England had become largely unfree; a free man could be impressed to take up arms and fight for the King's interests, but not for his own defense. Fear of that tyranny was every bit as strong as was fear of outside tyranny.

Your point about a standing army is certainly valid. The same requirements of modern warfare that require a standing army are oft used to attack the Second Amendment, as though a natural right not easily exercised should be lost. I would counter that the people need to be better armed in the presence of a standing army, not disarmed.

Hey taken in the context of the Founder's time Im sure even the most die hard liberul would be ok with everyone owning muskets.
 

Bulk Beef

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
5,466
0
76
I would counter that the people need to be better armed in the presence of a standing army, not disarmed.
Considering the intent of the Founders, this is absolutely correct.
Hey taken in the context of the Founder's time Im sure even the most die hard liberul would be ok with everyone owning muskets.
I hear this dumbass argument all the time, as if the Founders were completely ignorant to the concept of advancing technology. Benjamin Franklin, anyone? Their intent was that free men be as well-armed as the forces of those they may have been called upon to oppose. In the 18th century, that meant an American citizen's Pennsylvania rifle opposite a Brown Bess.

In the 21st, it means what it means.