thats a little misleading though through. yes a 9mil round will go through more walls than the ar 15. which is more due to weight. damage to a person is based on kinetic energy. the 9 mil round might go through 1 or 2 more walls buts its still bleeding of energy the AR 15 round has 4 times the the kinetic energy. all have the penetrating power to go through a house the ar 15 is more deadly to people.
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
One bad guy with a gun. One good guy with a gun. 4-5 unarmed family members. If you can only picture safety as being able to open fire in your house, you shouldn't have a gun at all.
"Current definition"? So that's what you call it.
You do realize you gave away the store, there, right?
The problem with that is not only is illegitimacy, but its implications - it carries the implicit threat of treating the entire Constitution like that. We'll have "current definitions" of search and seizure, say, that don't apply to computers or modern bank accounts.
The National Guard is not a militia. Having it "serve" as a militia (had that ever happened) would no more make it one than having it serve as a police force or ambulance service would make it a police force or ambulance service (which the examples given actually illustrate, btw - they have the National Guard serving as police, as soldiers, as emergency first responders, but always organized as a military force - not as militia).
The word "militia" has a meaning. It does not refer to the paid, professional, uniformed, government-equipped and government commanded soldiers of the State's military forces. A State's military and militia are distinct, separate, dissimilar entities.
And that is key to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, because one of the central features of a militia in the United States, in direct contrast to a military, is that it can and usually does arm itself. Its members bring their weapons from home, or from wherever they chose to keep them. That's the whole point of the ablative clause - it's not just fowling pieces and dueling pistols and harmless weaponry that the people have the right to keep and bear, it's militia grade weapons. Specifically and explicitly. So that when called up they will be at least that far along in being well-regulated.
Screwing around with pretend meanings for important terms is abandoning reason. Gun control advocates abandoning reason is a major part of the difficulty we have enacting sensible gun control in the US.
"Weapons of war"? Now where do we suppose that's headed - - - -
I am a member of the Federal and State and County and Town militia of my region, whether I even know it or not. I'm just very poorly equipped - no firearms - and so if I responded to a call my chapter of the militia would be ill-regulated from the git-go.
When your "current interpretation" somehow means something completely different than the original text, you're doing something wrong. There is a plain meaning of the sentence as written - which you have attempted to disguise by changing the wording, we notice.( Apparently not even you guys can actually read the thing as written without noticing what it seems to be saying.)
As along as gun control advocates resort to these illiteracies and deceptions and attempts at bullshitting the public, they will alienate a significant fraction of the reasonable majority. That jambs the discussion.
Last edited:
Handguns and highpowered rifles were standard US militia weaponry in 1780. The rifles, in particular, were famous.
Muskets were carried by militia, but were known as military issue - the army weapon.
Last edited:
They typically took half a minute or longer to reload and were wildly inaccurate even when wielded by the best of marksmen, unlike the guns used today. I believe the former were only known as "pistols" at the time and typically only fired a single shot.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Those were not my words. They came from
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State militia
Add this excerpt : In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his discussion on the Second Amendment noted the widespread decline in militia service and opinion of the militia’s importance:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."[/quote]
https://lawsonline.com/LegalTopics/Militia/volunteer-militia-national-guard.shtm
It seems that the Right to bear arms, brings with it a responsibility of participating in training so that a well regulated militia is a functional arm of the Federal government or the resident's State. When that responsibility is not met, the term "a well regulated militia" becomes moot and the result is that when the Second Amendment's requirements are not met it cannot be cited as proof of the Right to buy military weapons, without also volunteering for service when called upon.
Can you give me an example of a well regulated militia consisting of private citizens? Black Water?
The problem does not lie in the Law, the problem lies in "participation". Without participation in the training required to form a well regulated militia, the term becomes useless, and in IMO undermines the entire concept of the right to bear arms, especially the purchase of weapons designed for war.
Thus to come to a conclusion that anyone can buy a weapon of war, without any rules or regulations does not satisfy its intent and is and effectively renders the Second Amendment moot as written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
p.s. An AR rifle of any caliber is a weapon of war. It's very "AR" identification stands for military Assault Rifle, the same a "B" stands for a military Bomber and an "F" stands for a military Fighter.
i believe that a pistol is a type of handgun or at least thats the way they are classified.
quit projecting your delusions on to us. your the one making up meanings to get what you want. no ice gun control advocates using facts is not the reason we don't have sensible gun control people like you who lie and slander and make shit up are.
when are you going to quit lying. your delusional. i mean quite frankly given the way you have such a distorted view of the facts and history here and your viewpoint of where you fall in the spectrum of reasonable and goals the question has to be asked if your suffering from some low level of psychosis.
to reiterate your not the solution your the problem. your have repeatedly strayed into making arguments so delusional to border on the psychotic. you don't need to be arguing gun control you need to see a fucking therapist. your exhibiting scary levels of delusional thinking in you harp on minor details and grasp at the faintest of straws but disregard anything that weakens your fucked up ideology. like ignore for instance the phrase bear arms has an exclusive meaning to military context as a tennesee judge pointed out in his opinion.
actually it stands for armalite rifle.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I stand corrected.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Seriously guys:
I wonder if your obsession with the subject at hand is a positive or a negative.
Well................................................(I suppose that everyone needs a hobby)
And, I almost admire your single minded mania that doesn't let ignorance of our history, or the law, or the weapons involved stand in your way. (Something to be said for shear guts, determination and obstinate continuance in a course of action no matter how poorly founded.)
Anyway
A brief history of the "assault rifle"
Machine guns were becoming common in the 1860s, but right up through ww1 they were heavy and difficult to move about and maintain and were most commonly deployed like artillery or mortar crews.
And then came John Moses Browning who took the proven technology of the browning 1917 and produced the browning 1918, aka the Browning Automatic Rifle, or BAR. However the thing was still heavy at 16 pounds(empty). If in the hands of a marksman, it had/has an effective range of 500-600 yards.(if in the hands of a schmuck it was just a worthless heavy boat anchor.)
Meanwhile automatic pistols had been developed, Including What would become the Thompson sub-machine gun, aka tommy-gun--aka trench broom(for sweeping enemy trenches).
These machine pistols only had an accurate/effective range of something less than 50 yards.
OK so warfare is changing with mechanized cavalry, blitzkrieg, mobile infantry, etc. right up through ww1 part 2
About this time, it dawned on the military leaders that most combat was very mobile and occurred between 100 and 200 yards, and the search began for an intermediate range weapon.
And, we have the Sturmgewehr 44
Which may properly be called the first assault rifle with a range under 300 yards. It came late to the party and was mostly deployed on the eastern front, where it impressed Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov.
And, we have the AK47
NOW That's an assault rifle, and in my humble(?) opinion far superior to the mattel 16.
I wonder if your obsession with the subject at hand is a positive or a negative.
Well................................................(I suppose that everyone needs a hobby)
And, I almost admire your single minded mania that doesn't let ignorance of our history, or the law, or the weapons involved stand in your way. (Something to be said for shear guts, determination and obstinate continuance in a course of action no matter how poorly founded.)
Anyway
A brief history of the "assault rifle"
Machine guns were becoming common in the 1860s, but right up through ww1 they were heavy and difficult to move about and maintain and were most commonly deployed like artillery or mortar crews.
And then came John Moses Browning who took the proven technology of the browning 1917 and produced the browning 1918, aka the Browning Automatic Rifle, or BAR. However the thing was still heavy at 16 pounds(empty). If in the hands of a marksman, it had/has an effective range of 500-600 yards.(if in the hands of a schmuck it was just a worthless heavy boat anchor.)
Meanwhile automatic pistols had been developed, Including What would become the Thompson sub-machine gun, aka tommy-gun--aka trench broom(for sweeping enemy trenches).
These machine pistols only had an accurate/effective range of something less than 50 yards.
OK so warfare is changing with mechanized cavalry, blitzkrieg, mobile infantry, etc. right up through ww1 part 2
About this time, it dawned on the military leaders that most combat was very mobile and occurred between 100 and 200 yards, and the search began for an intermediate range weapon.
And, we have the Sturmgewehr 44
Which may properly be called the first assault rifle with a range under 300 yards. It came late to the party and was mostly deployed on the eastern front, where it impressed Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov.
And, we have the AK47
NOW That's an assault rifle, and in my humble(?) opinion far superior to the mattel 16.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Sure, especially if there are multiple, possibly armed, invaders. But it sounds like you'd prefer the 9mm, with its higher risk for collateral damage.
Is the "black rifle' just so scary looking that you'd rather take more risk with your family? Maybe you've just never heard of AR pistols.
Tanks, combat aircraft, and nukes aren't generally militia (now days the reserve militia) weapons, which the 2nd amendment specifies not be infringed. To rule modern militia small arms forbidden would require altering the 2nd amendment. Otherwise it is ignoring all precedents.
And? We're talking about home defense, where you want to stop invaders without potentially hitting family through walls.
As oppose to being potentially tied up and forced to watch your family raped and/or murdered?
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I don't need a gun to defend my house. I used to teach violence when I was in the USN.
there is no material difference in that regard between the rifle and handgun. both can go through enough walls to endanger ones family.
which just doesn't happen to any sort of signifigant degree. fantasies are not good arguments.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Dog's not likely to shoot anybody in the house by accident.
And the gun would not be stored safely, meaning the owner was an irresponsible gun owner.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
So you're going to Kung fu an armed home invader? Good luck.
It's only irresponsible if there are children in the home.
There is a difference. Educate yourself.
Try Googling "rapes home invasion." Does happen.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
caliber ?
use?
(I've been using a win70---chambered for 300 win mag---but ain't taken a long shot for a few years now---so beginning to think maybe overkill and of something lighter. The thing is that with 2700 fps and 3000 ft-lbs at 100 yards, it does tend to knock deer over. The work is easier if they just fall where I shot them.)
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
You think the only way to protect your home is a gun? Seriously, are you that programed by the NRA?
And a gun that isn't stored safely makes you a irresponsible gun owner. There's no debate about that.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Who said "only way?"
But aside from the deterrent effect of a house alarm, what else do you have? How are the police response times in your area?
Only if you live with irresponsible adults.