Embarrassed by my own state today

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Here is the bottom-line boys and girls, you gun freaks won the first round 5-4 in the SCOTUS, I feel pretty good that with another couple Democratic appointments we may see the Court revist this issue.

You won the first battle, it remains to be seen if you'll win the war.

In other words, you have four that don't give a damn about law, language, or history on this issue and you are hoping you may get a couple more in years to come.

As.noted, it is a foregone conclusion who would win any literal battle or war on this subject. It is only by the grace of the individually armed citizenry's implicit last word, that as much totalitarian creep has been tolerated as has been already. About the only thing that is manifestly guaranteed to trigger open rebellion if not civil war in this country is an attempt at compulsory disarmament. The only thing that can lawfully nullify the individual right of gun ownership is a constitutional amendment.

[gator1986]

I don't know how Americans can get that they have the right, to hang a pair of bear arms on the wall confused?

[PIMking]

The second amendment is the amendment that protects the rest! remove it and the government will start chipping away at the rest of your rights as they see fit.

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by gator1986

I don't know how Americans can get that they have the right, to hang a pair of beat arms on the wall confused?

Huh?

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Here is the bottom-line boys and girls, you gun freaks won the first round 5-4 in the SCOTUS, I feel pretty good that with another couple Democratic appointments we may see the Court revist this issue.

You won the first battle, it remains to be seen if you'll win the war.

Is ignorance bliss?

[PIMking]

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Actually the 2nd Amendemt is not that simple. Why does it mention a militia at all if the right to bear arms is all that is important?

Read Posner's article. He makes my argument better than I can.

I read the article. His argument is specious at best and has several incorrect assumptions. I explained why a militia is mentioned. The amendment is written the way it is for a reason. The right of the people (the same people mentioned in the 4th amendment with respect to search and seizure) to keep and bear arms is stated the way it is for a reason. Look at the drafts of the amendment Madison wrote. It should become quite clear. It's an individual right because it is an individual right to be a part of the militia (again, all able-bodied citizens willing to come to their own defense).

That's a silly argument. I served in the infantry. I have fired thousands of rounds from an M-16. A 30 round magazine is about suppressive fire. A 5.56 mm round has plenty of stopping power to make your point on your average criminal. If you are that concerned about stopping power with respect to home defense, I would suggest the classic Colt .45.

Chris Kyle (RIP) would disagree WRT stopping power. He makes it a point in his book to talk about how the 5.56 rounds they were shooting over in Iraq were not terribly effective in dropping the doped up Iraqi resistance fighters over there and how it would take multiple shots to incapacitate them, a problem he didn't see with his 7.62 or heavier weapons. Also, suppressive fire is generally supposed to be coming from the guy carrying the SAW, not the guys with the M16/M4. The M16 platform, while it can put off short bursts of suppressive fire, is not designed to issue sustained suppressive fire. Too many issues with heat and gas blowback gumming up the BCG, not to mention a good way to run through all your ammo really quickly. Since you were infantry, you should be in agreement that most operate their M16s in single shot mode 99% of the time. At least that has been the experience of the GIs I've talked to that have seen combat duty. Even so, an AR-15 platform putting off approximately a 3 rounds every 2 seconds or so is capable of operating in a suppressive role if need be, though it is not ideal. Doesn't suppressive fire have a valuable militia purpose? I believe that would make it protected per Miller, wouldn't it?

With respect to your Colt .45 comment, I sure hope you never have a need for more than 7+1 capacity or a range beyond 50m. There is a reason they generally refer to a sidearm as a secondary weapon system. Something like a 1911 is designed to sustain you until you can get to cover or a break in the fighting and get your primary operational, not for a sustained firefight.

[PIMking]

My actual shot

[gator1986]

Originally Posted by neisgator

Huh?

Lol sorry its from family guy, I meant to write bear, not beat

[helix139]

Originally Posted by PIMking

My actual shot

Nice! What were you using if I might ask?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

if that were to happen, there will be an actual war in this country.

I will not, I mean I WILL NOT, give up my weapons to those who think the government will do a better job protecting me and my family than myself. Those living in never never land thinking that if guns are banned we will be safer need to pull their heads out of a certain crevice on their bodies and look at Chicago as their Utopia of gun free communities.

Why dont the liberals just leave the union and create their own utopia? we will give you the NE, Northern Ill, and the Northwest, we will take the rest

A "war?" Hardly. You gun people who honestly think you scare the government with your AR-15's are laughable. Did you serve in any branch of the armed services? I bet you didn't, because if you had, you would know that the sheer firepower of the US military is far beyond anything a bunch of disgruntled citizens could possibly put together. It would be a slaughter on an epic scale. Not saying that it would be a good thing, but to suggest that the right to bear arms is somehow a deterrent on the Federal government is moronic.

A war? No. At most, we may see a few gun nuts go down like the Branch-Davidians at Waco.

[MichiGator2002]

You would be very foolish to presume that much of America's men at arms, military or police, would stand with forcible disarmament. That is one of the few acts of government that is never benign, always tyrannical.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

I read the article. His argument is specious at best and has several incorrect assumptions. I explained why a militia is mentioned. The amendment is written the way it is for a reason. The right of the people (the same people mentioned in the 4th amendment with respect to search and seizure) to keep and bear arms is stated the way it is for a reason. Look at the drafts of the amendment Madison wrote. It should become quite clear. It's an individual right because it is an individual right to be a part of the militia (again, all able-bodied citizens willing to come to their own defense).



Chris Kyle (RIP) would disagree WRT stopping power. He makes it a point in his book to talk about how the 5.56 rounds they were shooting over in Iraq were not terribly effective in dropping the doped up Iraqi resistance fighters over there and how it would take multiple shots to incapacitate them, a problem he didn't see with his 7.62 or heavier weapons. Also, suppressive fire is generally supposed to be coming from the guy carrying the SAW, not the guys with the M16/M4. The M16 platform, while it can put off short bursts of suppressive fire, is not designed to issue sustained suppressive fire. Too many issues with heat and gas blowback gumming up the BCG, not to mention a good way to run through all your ammo really quickly. Since you were infantry, you should be in agreement that most operate their M16s in single shot mode 99% of the time. At least that has been the experience of the GIs I've talked to that have seen combat duty. Even so, an AR-15 platform putting off approximately a 3 rounds every 2 seconds or so is capable of operating in a suppressive role if need be, though it is not ideal. Doesn't suppressive fire have a valuable militia purpose? I believe that would make it protected per Miller, wouldn't it?

With respect to your Colt .45 comment, I sure hope you never have a need for more than 7+1 capacity or a range beyond 50m. There is a reason they generally refer to a sidearm as a secondary weapon system. Something like a 1911 is designed to sustain you until you can get to cover or a break in the fighting and get your primary operational, not for a sustained firefight.

Just curious, did you serve in the Army or Marines by any chance? I did and your argument doesn't hold water. Basic infantry tactics often call for small squad sized units to lay down suppressive fire with their individual weapons while another similar sized unit maneuvers. A 5.56 round is perfectly adequate to suppress the enemy and/or to kill him.

8 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition is more than enough to protect hearth and home.

[tegator80]

If you really want to be a strict 2nd amendment supporter, the real question is why we decided to stop at firearms? If technology has moved to RPGs and whatnot, where was the fight to make these available? Not that I want to see people walking around with them but if you are going to fight an oppressive regime, can't bring a knife to a gun fight. I can only hope that there are some well-healed patriot types out there who are doing just that and don't mind sharing/training the rest of us if/when that happens.

But back to normal programming, as Ben Franklin and Oliver Wendell Holmes have said on the two most important aspects of human decency: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" and "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by helix139

Nice! What were you using if I might ask?

Mossberg MVP .223

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

So according to the CDC, motor vehicle deaths on average are higher as opposed to firearms deaths. I would imagine if they looked deeper and had only deaths resulting from a ugh capacity magazine, the numbers would be drastically lower. So yes, cars may not be designed like a gun but they are more effective at killing than are 30 round mags. What makes one any worse than the other?

Like I said, the "need" argument is stupid. Think of something else that almost makes sense.

For that matter, deaths due to medical error are many, MANY times higher than gun deaths.

So, why aren't the politicians banning doctors and hospitals ?

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

A "war?" Hardly. You gun people who honestly think you scare the government with your AR-15's are laughable. Did you serve in any branch of the armed services? I bet you didn't, because if you had, you would know that the sheer firepower of the US military is far beyond anything a bunch of disgruntled citizens could possibly put together. It would be a slaughter on an epic scale. Not saying that it would be a good thing, but to suggest that the right to bear arms is somehow a deterrent on the Federal government is moronic.

A war? No. At most, we may see a few gun nuts go down like the Branch-Davidians at Waco.

If a few thousand arabs with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs can give all that military might as much of a problem as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine what a couple hundred million able bodied citizens could do, and let's not discount that many military and LEO members would probably find themselves unwilling to turn on their friends and neighbors and carry out unlawful and tyrannical orders. It would be messy and there would be a lot of lives lost and devastation, but I think it's far from a sure thing that it would be a slaughter.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Just curious, did you serve in the Army or Marines by any chance? I did and your argument doesn't hold water. Basic infantry tactics often call for small squad sized units to lay down suppressive fire with their individual weapons while another similar sized unit maneuvers. A 5.56 round is perfectly adequate to suppress the enemy and/or to kill him.

No, I didn't serve, and thank you for your service. I've got several friends who have served, though, and have spoken to them about weapons and tactics in depth. I wasn't trying to argue that M16s aren't used for suppressive fire, moreso that they aren't designed for that purpose and will have problems if run in fully automatic mode for a sustained period of time, which I would venture is why squad units lay down suppressive fire rather than individual members of the squad unit. Yes, 5.56 is perfectly adequate to lay down suppressive fire, and definitely can kill someone (I never argued that it couldn't), but it's less likely than one of the larger rounds to kill or incapacitate someone with a single shot that doesn't hit the CNS of the target or take out a major blood supply, especially outside of 100 or so meters with M193 or inside of 100 or so meters with M855 due to where in their respective flight paths each type of round begins to tumble and fragment. I'm not discounting your experience, but numerous terminal ballistics tests show the above to be true, and especially true if the target is in an altered state of mind.

8 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition is more than enough to protect hearth and home.

Perhaps, provided the stress of the situation doesn't cause you to miss and that the number of attackers is small. It also doesn't allow for the possibility that you may have to lay down suppressive fire against armed attackers to allow family members to move to a safe location. In most cases, yes 8 rounds of .45 will probably be enough, but you plan for the worst case, not the best.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

If a few thousand arabs with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs can give all that military might as much of a problem as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, imagine what a couple hundred million able bodied citizens could do, and let's not discount that many military and LEO members would probably find themselves unwilling to turn on their friends and neighbors and carry out unlawful and tyrannical orders. It would be messy and there would be a lot of lives lost and devastation, but I think it's far from a sure thing that it would be a slaughter.

That assumes that there are millions of people in this country willing to take up arms against their Nation's government. History would suggest you are wrong.

In our entire history we have had only one civil war, and it was not a spontaneous uprising of the people, but rather a rebellion organized at the State level against the Federal government (and the Federal government won, by the way).

Look at segregation, the AFCA, the 2000 Presidential election or abortion, issues which outraged millions (and in the case of abortion, continues to do so), but we didn't see millions of people in the streets taking up arms against a government they disagreed with or even hundreds for that matter.

Why? Because Americans, except for a lunatic fringe, generally go along. We all have too much invested in our society to want to blow it all up. I am not going to war with my government just so a bunch of nuts can keep their assault weapons. Moreover, if we, as a society, through our elected officials, ultimately decide that a disarmed society is preferable to an armed society, the vast majority will go along, including myself.

That lunatic fringe that I spoke of that won't go along I suspect will ultimately share the same fate as the Branch-Davidians.

And the rest of us will continue with our lives as before, we'll get up in the morning, send our kids to school, go to work, pay our taxes, go to church, buy our ipads, take our Summer vacations, and enjoy our lives.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by tegator80

If you really want to be a strict 2nd amendment supporter, the real question is why we decided to stop at firearms? If technology has moved to RPGs and whatnot, where was the fight to make these available? Not that I want to see people walking around with them but if you are going to fight an oppressive regime, can't bring a knife to a gun fight. I can only hope that there are some well-healed patriot types out there who are doing just that and don't mind sharing/training the rest of us if/when that happens.

This is an easy one. Destructive devices and active explosives simply can't be stored safely inside one's home, and the cost of mishandling is extremely high with a lot of collateral damage not just to the party that mishandled it, but to neighbors as well. Thus, there is a compelling governmental interest in restricting such devices that would pass any level of judicial scrutiny.