AR-15's back in stock...big time

[wirednuts]

At the time it was written 'well regulated' meant practiced, or trained, or properly functioning. In other words, since people are the militia and they have to all know how to use weapons, we'll never tell you you can't have and practice with them.

The 'militia' was every able bodied man of age. In today's terms, to avoid discrimination, it would be every citizen over 18.

This has been well covered in numerous academic and legal accounts.

i get it now. i admitted it a ways back. people are digging up stuff now and regurgitating whats already been explained.

the only point i see left is the fact that since there is no draft right now, would sane civilians still be considered militia? they are not necessary to this free state, and furthermore in light of all the shootings this past decade im not sure we could be considered 'well regulated' either.

but the whole argument was not about what things are today, it was about how the forefathers thought it should be. and i admitted i was wrong.

 

[Skel]

What do you mean ammo weight? I've played fallout 3, ammo is weightless.

Best thing I've read in this tread...

 

[BladeVenom]

Unfortunately for your opinion, we have several decades of science and real-world hard military use promoting the combat effectiveness of smaller caliber rifles.

.30+ calibers have their purpose. If you want to reach out and touch someone at a distance, that is a caliber of choice. But the science is pretty sound. You can give an average person a heavy battle rifle (like an FAL...I've got a couple of those myself) or an AR-15, and they'll put more rounds on target faster at short-medium distances (0-200m) with the AR. Same applies for an AK-47 vs. AK-74; the 74 allows you to put more rounds on target faster (and more accurately) than the 47, and it still does quite a lot of damage to soft targets.

Maybe against paper targets. According to the stats I've heard, the number of bullets fired for every enemy casualty has dramatically increased. Soldiers today are missing at a much higher rate now then when they used heavier rifles. Right now in the middle-east they are using over 250,000 rounds of ammo per insurgent killed.

 

[spidey07]

Parts and bolt carrier groups are still really hard to come by.

 

[pontifex]

Maybe against paper targets. According to the stats I've heard, the number of bullets fired for every enemy casualty has dramatically increased. Soldiers today are missing at a much higher rate now then when they used heavier rifles. Right now in the middle-east they are using over 250,000 rounds of ammo per insurgent killed.

but hasn't training gone from precise accurate fire to more volume fire? I thought I read this in an article, like American Rifleman or something, where they were discussing the move from .30 cal to .22 cal

 

[PrinceofWands]

i get it now. i admitted it a ways back. people are digging up stuff now and regurgitating whats already been explained.

the only point i see left is the fact that since there is no draft right now, would sane civilians still be considered militia? they are not necessary to this free state, and furthermore in light of all the shootings this past decade im not sure we could be considered 'well regulated' either.

but the whole argument was not about what things are today, it was about how the forefathers thought it should be. and i admitted i was wrong.

Yeah, I caught up to it all after posting, my bad.

As for the bolded, absolutely disagree. The ONLY way a state remains free is if the people can rise up and throw off the government at will. The people are THE ultimate check and balance on government corruption.

 

[Train]

Maybe against paper targets. According to the stats I've heard, the number of bullets fired for every enemy casualty has dramatically increased. Soldiers today are missing at a much higher rate now then when they used heavier rifles. Right now in the middle-east they are using over 250,000 rounds of ammo per insurgent killed.

I'd love to see these stats

 

[_Rick_]

With all that discussion of the second, hasn't its premise been disproven?

I for one can not currently see a "well regulated militia" (which entails organisation in the form of command structure) being in existence in the US, outside government-provided forces, such as the various arms of the military, and police forces.

So, with the premise being, that this militia is necessary for a free state to exist, if it doesn't exist then there isn't a free state in action. I think there is still a majority in the US (outside of the ultra-liberal camp) that sees the US as a free state, despite this lack of militia. This would then invalidate the resulting argument, that the right to bear arms is necessary, as the militia that it should enable, is in fact not existent. (At least that is the interpretation of those of you arguing against the fact that the military/police forces represent such a militia).
So how can you defend an amendment, that appears to be based on a false premise?

It's like an amendment saying "Swift persecution being necessary to a peaceful state, the right of the public to lynch criminals shall not be infringed." (excuse the straw man...)

You can't base a perceived civil right on a false premise, and think to act in good conscience, can you?

 

[highland145]

snip

discussion club thread

 

[irishScott]

With all that discussion of the second, hasn't its premise been disproven?

I for one can not currently see a "well regulated militia" (which entails organisation in the form of command structure) being in existence in the US, outside government-provided forces, such as the various arms of the military, and police forces.

So, with the premise being, that this militia is necessary for a free state to exist, if it doesn't exist then there isn't a free state in action. I think there is still a majority in the US (outside of the ultra-liberal camp) that sees the US as a free state, despite this lack of militia. This would then invalidate the resulting argument, that the right to bear arms is necessary, as the militia that it should enable, is in fact not existent. (At least that is the interpretation of those of you arguing against the fact that the military/police forces represent such a militia).
So how can you defend an amendment, that appears to be based on a false premise?

It's like an amendment saying "Swift persecution being necessary to a peaceful state, the right of the public to lynch criminals shall not be infringed." (excuse the straw man...)

You can't base a perceived civil right on a false premise, and think to act in good conscience, can you?

It isn't required for a free state to exist, it's required (as the amendment states) for the security of a free state to exist.

That security includes both internal and external. A militia and the capability to form one keeps invaders away and the government in line.

 

[Train]

With all that discussion of the second, hasn't its premise been disproven?

I for one can not currently see a "well regulated militia" (which entails organisation in the form of command structure) being in existence in the US, outside government-provided forces, such as the various arms of the military, and police forces.

So, with the premise being, that this militia is necessary for a free state to exist, if it doesn't exist then there isn't a free state in action. I think there is still a majority in the US (outside of the ultra-liberal camp) that sees the US as a free state, despite this lack of militia. This would then invalidate the resulting argument, that the right to bear arms is necessary, as the militia that it should enable, is in fact not existent. (At least that is the interpretation of those of you arguing against the fact that the military/police forces represent such a militia).
So how can you defend an amendment, that appears to be based on a false premise?

It's like an amendment saying "Swift persecution being necessary to a peaceful state, the right of the public to lynch criminals shall not be infringed." (excuse the straw man...)

You can't base a perceived civil right on a false premise, and think to act in good conscience, can you?

Lack of militia? There are literally hundreds of active militias in the USA.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Maybe against paper targets. According to the stats I've heard, the number of bullets fired for every enemy casualty has dramatically increased. Soldiers today are missing at a much higher rate now then when they used heavier rifles. Right now in the middle-east they are using over 250,000 rounds of ammo per insurgent killed.

Our soldiers also have a much higher survival rate because of the amount of lead being thrown at the enemy. i think more Americans were killed by gunfire in Chicago last year than Afghanistan.