Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

You're missing my point in the details. The "collectivist" view on the matter is that "militia" was intended to apply to forces such as the modern National Guard - the armies of the individual states. My point is that the conception of the militia in 1787 was "The people". The distinction between "militia" and "everyone else" didn't exist in the modern sense when the 2nd Amendment was written. Indeed, the only Supreme Court decision that comes anywhere close to supporting the "militia only" interpretation is Miller in 1939 - which held that the Federal government has the right to ban sawed-off shotguns because they are not suitable for military use. Every other case touching on the 2nd Amendment is closer to the "individualist" position, although the pre-1939 decisions don't state this explicitly because the "collectivist" position doesn't seem to have existed yet.

That said your edit is exactly what most of the the pre-20th century case law suggests - the government has no right to take arms from anybody, but the 2nd Amendment does not prevent private individuals to do so (although states have the right to ban this).

[smjjames]

Even then, there isn't a single definition of militia in the Constitution that a vast majority agree on. If you ask two prominent conservative scholars of the Constitution and it's likely they won't agree 100%. 90% perhaps, but not neccesarily 100%

You're missing my point in the details. The "collectivist" view on the matter is that "militia" was intended to apply to forces such as the modern National Guard - the armies of the individual states. My point is that the conception of the militia in 1787 was "The people". The distinction between "militia" and "everyone else" didn't exist in the modern sense when the 2nd Amendment was written. Indeed, the only Supreme Court decision that comes anywhere close to supporting the "militia only" interpretation is Miller in 1939 - which held that the Federal government has the right to ban sawed-off shotguns because they are not suitable for military use. Every other case touching on the 2nd Amendment is closer to the "individualist" position, although the pre-1939 decisions don't state this explicitly because the "collectivist" position doesn't seem to have existed yet.

That said your edit is exactly what most of the the pre-20th century case law suggests - the government has no right to take arms from anybody, but the 2nd Amendment does not prevent private individuals to do so (although states have the right to ban this).

So, which do we use? The one the founders intended or the one the modern definition is with the distinction between military and everybody else? Obviously the logical answer would be what the founders intended, but we can't raise the founders from the dead and ask for clarification.

[nenjin]

Or, to put it another way:

Group A: "We're getting pizza. I'm thinking anchovies"
Group B: "No, we don't want anchovies"
Group A: "Ok, how about pepperoni, mushroom, and anchovy?"
Group B: "No. Anchovies"
Group A: "Ham, Pineapple, and anchovy?"
Group B: "What part of NO ANCHOVIES did you not understand?"
Group A: "FINE, WE AREN'T GETTING PIZZA AND IT IS YOUR FAULT!"

Except in this case, "Anchovies" is 1000 RPM, which the anti-gun lobby sees no use for and the pro-gun lobby can't articulate any reason for besides "it's our right" and "when the government comes kicking down my door I need that RPM."

The whole "defense against tyranny" thing is what drives the desire for more powerful guns, despite there being no actual evidence or reason for such a thing to be real. We allow military grade weapons on the street simply against the chance that, one day, someone needs to rise up against the government. Meanwhile the actual body count continues to pile up higher than it otherwise would be with less effective weapons.

"Defense against tyranny" turns in to "when I arbitrarily decide I've had enough (with the government/crime/politics/my life/my wife.)"

[Lord Shonus]

Except in this case, "Anchovies" is 1000 RPM

Uh, no it does not. The only weapons capable of firing at that rate are illegal full-autos (this is an extremely high fire rate, most fully-automatic guns can't do it), assuming that you mean "1000 rounds per minute". There are no serious attempts to repeal the full-auto ban, and banning devices capable of simulating full-auto fire has widespread support - the only wrinkle is that the proposed law was badly written.

[smjjames]

Except in this case, "Anchovies" is 1000 RPM

Uh, no it does not. The only weapons capable of firing at that rate are illegal full-autos (this is an extremely high fire rate, most fully-automatic guns can't do it), assuming that you mean "1000 rounds per minute". There are no serious attempts to repeal the full-auto ban, and banning devices capable of simulating full-auto fire has widespread support - the only wrinkle is that the proposed law was badly written.

100 RPM then, that's roughly an AR-15.

[nenjin]

Which really begs the question......what are we ACTUALLY buying and using these things for, versus what we say we're buying and using them for?

It's not like there's any real answer. This is the exact same conversation I had 20 years ago on another board when the AWB was first brought up.

[smjjames]

I assume they're buying the hunting rifles mostly for what they're for, but military style weapons? The only civillian use I've ever read for military style weapons was to shoot at coyotes (mentioned either on this forum), and.... that's the only civillian use that I've ever heard for that.

[Lord Shonus]

They are purchased for rural pest (feral dogs, coyotes, feral pigs, and other large destructive animal) control, recreational target practice, and general defensive purposes. Statistical evidence shows that the vast, vast majority are used for nothing more sinister than this, as only a small percentage of firearm fatalities can be attributed to rifles.

[Reelya]

Handguns are really a much bigger problem, despite semi-auto rifles getting more publicity since they're suitable for the rarer mass-scale shootings.

Cracking down on handgun crime would in fact reduce the demand for rifles for defense purposes in the long run.

[sluissa]

I assume they're buying the hunting rifles mostly for what they're for, but military style weapons? The only civillian use I've ever read for military style weapons was to shoot at coyotes (mentioned either on this forum), and.... that's the only civillian use that I've ever heard for that.

What is the difference between a "hunting rifle" and a "military style rifle"?

Among the ones available to civilians there's very few differences that aren't cosmetic. In many cases the internals are the same and the only real difference is that one is wrapped in wood and the other plastic and metal.

[Dorsidwarf]

I assume they're buying the hunting rifles mostly for what they're for, but military style weapons? The only civillian use I've ever read for military style weapons was to shoot at coyotes (mentioned either on this forum), and.... that's the only civillian use that I've ever heard for that.

What is the difference between a "hunting rifle" and a "military style rifle"?

Among the ones available to civilians there's very few differences that aren't cosmetic. In many cases the internals are the same and the only real difference is that one is wrapped in wood and the other plastic and metal.

Presumably they mean bolt-action weapons versus "fires as fast as your finger can pull the boom lever" semi-auto? I dont know what americans actually use to hunt, not being an american or a hunter, but I know that when most of my peers think sporting/hunting rifles thats what they mean
Also the tacticool meaningless bling that gun nuts like to bolt onto their shooties to make their mates go "ooh" makes them look scary to anti-gun protestors(and generally no better at hunting, bringing the argument back down to "what if i need to shoot the fbi tho".)






I wonder if there are any studies comparing the numbers on people who hunt often versus total gun ownership versus gun range participation. Might be interesting.

[WealthyRadish]

In my eyes the most effective means of gun control for the peculiar political situation in the US would be to add fees for their purchase (annually renewing) and to require manufacturers and owners of operable weapons to have a locking mechanism on the trigger with an electronic or physical key. These policies would be helpful by themselves, but more importantly I think they would help in deescalating the conversation and making the issue less politically toxic over time.

The locking mechanisms would help with things like teen suicide and gun theft, but the effects of the increased price of both the mechanisms and the fees would make gun ownership less accessible for people looking to buy and own guns for frivolous reasons. If you had to pay an additional $500-1000 per gun on purchase and like $200-400 yearly each, plus the increased cost the safety regulations add to the market price, more hobbyists, collectors, hunters, the "home invasion" crowd, and others would be priced out and would prefer other hobbies. People who own multiple guns and collectors of many guns would likely prefer to have most of them permanently deactivated or sold rather than pay annual fees on something they don't use, and general rates of ownership and proliferation would drop. And if the industry were maimed in the process, maybe the obviously corrupt influence of money and business interests on the debate would diminish as well.

In many respects, the "responsible gun-owner" group is the greatest obstacle to public policy that makes any sense (despite themselves not having done anything wrong) because their central position in the rhetoric distorts the issues and create a bloc of voters that have a large personal interest in gun legislation only by virtue of it being connected to their hobby. If people bought fewer guns simply because they were more expensive, more people would look at the issue from a disinterested view of public welfare and would be more open to evidence-based policy, rather than considering themselves to be personally under attack and their self-image of responsibility to be personally slighted whenever the possibility of gun control is brought up.

[Dorsidwarf]

In my eyes the most effective means of gun control for the peculiar political situation in the US would be to add fees for their purchase (annually renewing) and to require manufacturers and owners of operable weapons to have a locking mechanism on the trigger with an electronic or physical key. These policies would be helpful by themselves, but more importantly I think they would help in deescalating the conversation and making the issue less politically toxic over time.

The locking mechanisms would help with things like teen suicide and gun theft, but the effects of the increased price of both the mechanisms and the fees would make gun ownership less accessible for people looking to buy and own guns for frivolous reasons. If you had to pay an additional $500-1000 per gun on purchase and like $200-400 yearly each, plus the increased cost the safety regulations add to the market price, more hobbyists, collectors, hunters, the "home invasion" crowd, and others would be priced out and would prefer other hobbies. People who own multiple guns and collectors of many guns would likely prefer to have most of them permanently deactivated or sold rather than pay annual fees on something they don't use, and general rates of ownership and proliferation would drop. And if the industry were maimed in the process, maybe the obviously corrupt influence of money and business interests on the debate would diminish as well.

In many respects, the "responsible gun-owner" group is the greatest obstacle to public policy that makes any sense (despite themselves not having done anything wrong) because their central position in the rhetoric distorts the issues and create a bloc of voters that have a large personal interest in gun legislation only by virtue of it being connected to their hobby. If people bought fewer guns simply because they were more expensive, more people would look at the issue from a disinterested view of public welfare and would be more open to evidence-based policy, rather than considering themselves to be personally under attack and their self-image of responsibility to be personally slighted whenever the possibility of gun control is brought up.

This of course runs into the whole "100 million guns" issue, in which you now have a vast amount of angry people who cant afford their guns any more, at which point the rate of "lost" guns is going to go through the roof.

[wierd]

In my eyes the most effective means of gun control for the peculiar political situation in the US would be to add fees for their purchase (annually renewing) and to require manufacturers and owners of operable weapons to have a locking mechanism on the trigger with an electronic or physical key. These policies would be helpful by themselves, but more importantly I think they would help in deescalating the conversation and making the issue less politically toxic over time.

The locking mechanisms would help with things like teen suicide and gun theft, but the effects of the increased price of both the mechanisms and the fees would make gun ownership less accessible for people looking to buy and own guns for frivolous reasons. If you had to pay an additional $500-1000 per gun on purchase and like $200-400 yearly each, plus the increased cost the safety regulations add to the market price, more hobbyists, collectors, hunters, the "home invasion" crowd, and others would be priced out and would prefer other hobbies. People who own multiple guns and collectors of many guns would likely prefer to have most of them permanently deactivated or sold rather than pay annual fees on something they don't use, and general rates of ownership and proliferation would drop. And if the industry were maimed in the process, maybe the obviously corrupt influence of money and business interests on the debate would diminish as well.

In many respects, the "responsible gun-owner" group is the greatest obstacle to public policy that makes any sense (despite themselves not having done anything wrong) because their central position in the rhetoric distorts the issues and create a bloc of voters that have a large personal interest in gun legislation only by virtue of it being connected to their hobby. If people bought fewer guns simply because they were more expensive, more people would look at the issue from a disinterested view of public welfare and would be more open to evidence-based policy, rather than considering themselves to be personally under attack and their self-image of responsibility to be personally slighted whenever the possibility of gun control is brought up.

This ^  Is very much a "city dweller" take on the issue.

For city dwellers, who have the benefit of an actively patrolling police force, a municipal animal control department, and a number of other fully leveraged security services available in a short time period in response to a disturbance, the only legitimate reason to own a gun is "hobby", so "taxation to reduce ownership levels" makes perfect sense.

However, I will again point out that huge portions of the USA are not city, and that a good chunk of gun owners are not city dwellers, who own and operate weapons for reasons other than "hobby", directly stemming from the lack of those security resources.

Unless the city dwelling population wants to pony up and be responsible for the marked reduction in security of non-urban populations, by the forced introduction of such measures (Ha!) by providing the same level of security to the impacted populations (HAHAHAH!! as IF!), this is a non-starter to a good portion of the country, who also just so happen to be perfectly legal gun owners.

I am perfectly OK with passing federal level regulations for gun ownership inside cities that might have such trappings.  Not so much for them as a blanket "for everyone", since not everyone has equal access to security related services.

I can see reasonable restrictions on the numbers and types of weapons that could be owned, (you dont need an uzi. No. You just dont.) but it is improper to levy such a weapon tax on people who actually need them.  It's about as silly as taxing kitchen knives.  In fact, kitchen knives make a great analog here:  Using a katana in the kitchen and claiming it is essential to carve a turkey is nonsense.  However, you DO need a fairly long knife to carve a turkey. If the local government gets a bit paranoid about large knives, you will suddenly find yourself trying to use a short paring knife at thanksgiving.  Likewise with animal control out in the county.  Sometimes you really do need the extra firepower. (take for instance, against bears.) People who mean well can put you at a great deal of risk, insisting that you dont need more than a 9mm pistol, ever. They simply cannot conceive of how you could possibly need that M1 garand, even when you explain it to them slowly. The concept of "Wild bears + isolated cabin == Need big gun" does not sink in; they insist that is what animal control is for. Even though you live 4 hours away from a major city. They may even suggest "Fish and Game department"--- which is often DAYS to respond.

[Shazbot]

There is an entire billion post thread on this forum about police militarization and police brutality...

"But why would a civilian need a gun like that?"

In my eyes the most effective means of gun control for the peculiar political situation in the US would be to add fees for their purchase (annually renewing) and to require manufacturers and owners of operable weapons to have a locking mechanism on the trigger with an electronic or physical key. These policies would be helpful by themselves, but more importantly I think they would help in deescalating the conversation and making the issue less politically toxic over time.

The locking mechanisms would help with things like teen suicide and gun theft, but the effects of the increased price of both the mechanisms and the fees would make gun ownership less accessible for people looking to buy and own guns for frivolous reasons. If you had to pay an additional $500-1000 per gun on purchase and like $200-400 yearly each, plus the increased cost the safety regulations add to the market price, more hobbyists, collectors, hunters, the "home invasion" crowd, and others would be priced out and would prefer other hobbies. People who own multiple guns and collectors of many guns would likely prefer to have most of them permanently deactivated or sold rather than pay annual fees on something they don't use, and general rates of ownership and proliferation would drop. And if the industry were maimed in the process, maybe the obviously corrupt influence of money and business interests on the debate would diminish as well.

In many respects, the "responsible gun-owner" group is the greatest obstacle to public policy that makes any sense (despite themselves not having done anything wrong) because their central position in the rhetoric distorts the issues and create a bloc of voters that have a large personal interest in gun legislation only by virtue of it being connected to their hobby. If people bought fewer guns simply because they were more expensive, more people would look at the issue from a disinterested view of public welfare and would be more open to evidence-based policy, rather than considering themselves to be personally under attack and their self-image of responsibility to be personally slighted whenever the possibility of gun control is brought up.

"Lets take guns away from the poor people so only rich people can have guns, nevermind that poor people live in higher-risk areas where they need guns far more than rich people. Then lets also put locks and stuff on them that will get people raped and killed when they can't find their keys in a panic. Also lets destroy a large American industry and ignore the validity of any of these people's views."

Nope. Non-starter. Try again with less getting people killed, please. I have a trigger lock for my shotgun, for example. Its... well honestly I don't know where it is. Will you send the police door to door confiscating any firearm that doesn't have its thousand-dollar lock? I'm burying mine in motor oil-soaked rags out back. You tracked the serial number? Parts kits and ghost guns. An AR-15 is $85 if you are willing to put that last 20% of drilling and filing on a plastic molding in. It isn't serialized and it isn't tracked.

A hunting rifle is any rifle in a caliber fit to shoot the given animal in. "Varmit hunting" for pest animals is loosely regulated. Game animals proper is a state-by-state matter. There may be a ban on semi-automatic rifles in a given state for game harvesting. Most purpose-built hunting rifles are Mauser-derivative bolt action rifles in ~.30 caliber. For example, the very popular Remington 700 is basically the Mauser action in modern furniture. These are all dual-purpose as being far better infantry rifles than anyone was issued in WWI or WWII with the exception of the M1 Garand. They fire heavier bullets for more foot-pounds of energy than intermediate cartridges. Many of them fire cartridges more powerful than a standard infantry machine gun, and they all do so with a level of mechanical accuracy far, far better than their counterparts a hundred years ago. This is because the machining and precision of mass manufacture has improved tremendously in the last hundred years.

Tacticool gun bling exists mostly for home defense and competitive sport shooting. However, anything that lets you more efficiently acquire and shoot a steel plate at 100 meters can allow you to acquire and shoot a deer at 100 meters. Gun lights are tremendously valuable in home defense as it ensures a shooter can identify the suspected threat as an actual threat, reducing accidental shootings. So... gun bling isn't useless. Even something as odd as a red-dot sight on a shotgun would be fantastic for shooting deer with slugs. Red dot on target, bang. There is a reason the military gobbles the stuff up even on the world-class operator level.

Long rifles are responsible for fuck all in a big ship's worth of gun violence, Reelya is correct. The reverse is that handguns are responsible for all the concealed-carry interventions into attempted mass shootings, robberies, assaults and rapes. There's also no real need to reduce the demand for rifles in the long run, since you just admit they aren't responsible for the problem.

"What are military style weapons in civilian hands for?", asks a thread full of people who have complained for years about a President being a puppet controlled by a foreign government, fretted over a racist forced-migration threat for millions of undocumented neighbors, lamented the rise of racially-motivated killings of minority youth by unaccountable police, feared the militarization of formerly civilian police agencies, contemplated the virtues of an entire reconstruction of the American economic system, and the only answer anyone has is, "shoot coyotes".

That's... that's the joke to me. The need for every citizen to have arms equal to the common infantryman under the bed is every step toward a tin-pot dictatorship that you bemoan. How much faster would your rights be trampled over if there was no fear of a general insurrection against tyranny? Every President in our history has stepped down from power at the end of his term for this very reason; very few countries can say the same, none of which are of our size.



I am going to say this, however.

The FBI needs to issue a better-fitting holster if its agents are going to be inverted in the line of duty.