Last week, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) unveiled their latest attempt to harm the rights of legal gun owners. The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Yes, this foolishness again. They were joined at a press conference by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (both D-CT), House Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Ted Deutch (D-FL), House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and advocates from the Newtown Action Alliance.
They proposed use of the hashtag sayno2moreammo.
Be heard! Use #sayyes2moreammo instead.
Great….again.
Ding Ding here we go again…
So if we look at the stats, killing sprees like Newtown, Aurora, or Tucson happen less than 1% of the time. Yet instead of linking the common denominator, which is mental heal issues, these idiots want to affect the other 99%. Why is it so easy for them to draft bills on legislating round capacity, but they won’t draft a mental health initiative to try and stop these things from happening? I just hate these idiots who think that if they take all the guns away, there will be some type of utopia. What it does is stops good people from being able to defend ourselves. Let’s remember what happened in Paris. The people there were holding cameras instead of firearms, and watching people get murdered in the street instead of trying to stop it. We need to crush any attempt at further degrading our rights, and fight to take back what’s been stripped.
I don’t disagree but I do want to add the caveat that the issue is VIOLENT mental health diseases. “Mental illness” covers a wide spectrum and only a tiny fraction of those affected are of dangerous concern.
I don’t think its foolishness. Why do you need more then ten rounds in a magazine?
I agree we need better and more resources for those who have a family member struggling with mental health issues.
You’ve come to the wrong shop for Anarchy brother.
Excellent quote and application!
Tom, we don’t have to explain or justify why we want a standard capacity magazine (15rd pistol, 20/30rd rifle). Why do you need an explanation of what we do with our recreational items?
Mental health concerns are important and worth putting resources into. Magazine restrictions and other vindictive jabs at legal gun owners are not.
Trolling troll trolls.
YEP!
And based on how many fire fights have you come to this conclusion Tomin?
In my backyard? None. You got me.
Tom, really?
If our politicians wish to stop or eradicate needless deaths why do we they still allow cars on the road? Do you know how many people die each week from car related deaths in the United States alone?
Also, 10 rounds…..19 rounds, makes no difference. If someone wants to kill someone they will try by any means to do so. If not with a gun then with a knife, bat, car, poison, hammer, fists, molotov cocktail!
What if I carry 5 10 round magazines plus the 11 in my gun, then I have 61 rounds of craziness for my firearm, right??
Amen, reloading is easy.
“What if I carry 5 10 round magazines plus the 11 in my gun, then I have 61 rounds of craziness for my firearm, right??”
A compelling argument for an assault weapons ban altogether.
You’re right about cars and I’ve made that argument numerous times. The trouble is that our economy runs on the internal combustion engine. Take a moment: how many economic activities can you think of that do not at some point involve cars? Let me know what you come up with. And yes people die from the use of cars – a lot more than from guns. But that’s the trade we’re willing to make.
Now, assuming you’re not law enforcement, what value does your firearm – and especially your “large capacity ammunition feeding device” – bring to society?
My point on cars is that at the age of 16 we are putting a pimple faced pubescent hormone driven kid behind a 2000lb missle yet scared to death to give someone 21 a magazine that holds 11….perhaps 19 rounds of ammunition.
If the citizen cannot carry more than 10 rounds why on earth does a cop need to carry more? I would guess that cops get to the scene of a crime AFTER the fact (more so then stop the crime) and they are there to take a report.
Now if I can take said car and bolt down 1000HP when 180HP will suffice, why can I not take a 19 round magazine and carry it in my firearm? What good does a 200hp engine do for society?
“Now, assuming you’re not law enforcement, what value does your firearm – and especially your “large capacity ammunition feeding device” – bring to society?”
For one, my civil liberties arent placed on a measuring block when it comes to the general abstract concept of “society’s needs”, especially since such weapons are used in a handful of the 300 some odd deaths from ALL rifles last year.
Presuppose that they are,
1.) Per the provisions intended in federalist no. 19, 29, and 46, my “large capacity magazine” is conducive for being a member of the “well-regulated militia”, which means, “in proper working order”.
2.) Per the provisions of repelling foreign invasions and preventing a hypothetical tyrannical government.
3.) Per the provisions of maintaining good order in the event of a riot or insurrection (i.e. watts riots and post-katrina New Orleans).
The problem with magazine bans is the one of diminishing returns.
How much expense and risk are you going to take in order to tackle the handful of gun crimes committed with such magazines? and, if there is no guarantee that rates will be lowered at all (and the DOJ is right to conclude that it wont be), is it worth the astronomical cost to our already dwindling civil liberties?
This puts the utilitarian value of magazine capacity bans in question. It also will ensure republicans remain relevant in elections, despite their previous tomfoolery.
30 rounds is the standard magazine capacity It’s not large capacity. It would be a lot easier to respect you in this discussion if you didn’t use Orwellian double-speak. I see it all the time.
Hunting Rifle > Sniper Rifle
Sporting Rifle > Assault Rifle
Ban Handguns they are too concealable.
Ban Rifles they are too powerful.
As to what value does my firearm bring to society? It doesn’t matter if I am no a threat to society. Society has to prove why I should not have a firearm, I should not have to prove to society why I should have one.
It’s the difference between having an equal or a paternalistic relationship with your government.
ya, congress should have no more than 10 pages per bill
maybe SSD should limit it to 10 word replys.
Who are you to say what I need and don’t need?
No one has to answer too anyone what I need, stick your nose out of my business, very simple really.
Guess we should never stick our noses into drug dealers’ businesses either.
I agree. We shouldn’t.
Why does anyone need a fancy sports car with a top speed of more than 150 MPH? The maximum speed limit in most states is 70-75 MPH. You obviously don’t comprehend what is at stake here. The Second Amendment was created to facilitate a citizen response to government tyranny. It was left intentionally vague as the framers understood that technology might someday eclipse what they knew and understood. 1000 round magazines should not be prohibited if they are available to, and used by the government. And no, I do not advocate private possession of grenades, bazookas, RPGs, tactical nukes, etc. There are obvious limits. Colonists didn’t keep cannons in their barns. However, the historical record is clear on this point: The British sought to restrict the importation of small arms by/for the colonists before the revolution. This had a significant influence on the creation of Second Amendment.
I am always amazed that the First Amendment is NEVER questioned with regard to technology. In 1787 there was no telegraph, telephone, radio, television or internet. Yet all of these communication methods have at various times claimed First Amendment protection. “freedom of the press” has been a very broad umbrella. Why is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” interpreted so narrowly, especially by the left wing?
TominVA,
Better yet, why don’t you logically explain to me why I shouldn’t be allowed more than 10 rounds in my magazine if I so choose? Or why I should even have to waste my time, effort, and breath justifying to you or anyone else why I feel that I “need” anything? If it isn’t important to you to have magazines that hold however many rounds you like, then fine, don’t buy any. But you aren’t going to make that decision for me based on your own ignorant fear and misunderstanding. Thanks.
Yeah, and why should I have to justify my need for a .50 caliber rifle, or for that matter a M320 40mm grenade launcher. While we’re on the subject, why should I have to justify my need for a FIM-92 stinger missile to the ATF?
Quite the leap into the absurd there AECTr and zero below.
Nobody was talking about heavy weapons and high explosives except you two. Those items are already largely illegal for private individuals to own.
We’re talking about the capacity of small arms magazines, i.e. for semiautomatic rifles and pistols which are already perfectly legal to own
A discussion works better if everyone stays on subject and within the parameters of reality.
TLB
You’re quite right, that was a poor attempt at humour. But on a more serious note, if 30 round magazines should be available, should that be the limit? Are there any states that have higher limits, for example on the Surefire 60/100 round magazines, or the old beta mags?
… no limit at all, ever.
But that’s the point I was getting to earlier with my poor attempt at humour: why not 45-60 round magazines? why not drum magazines? why not belt-fed machine guns? why not 20mm chain guns? Surely you have to draw the line somewhere. And if you dont draw a line for magazine sizes, then why draw a line for calibers, or for round types (AP, HE, incendary), or for the type of weapon for that matter?
There should be no limit. You don’t understand that these firearms are not for any other purpose than protection from the US Government.
The line is quite plainly drawn between “small arms” and “ordnance”.
And there is no limit to owning belt-feds, especially semi-autos.
I dont see what the problem is.
A cannon is just a large gun.
what? LOL
So the tyrannasaur is a ‘cannon’ by your definition?
Im speaking in terms of “cannon” as in, military usage.
We’re quite clearly talking about 10 round limits. The rest of your examples are already controlled except for magazine limits as that’s so far been a states issue, and in the states that have these limits versus those that don’t have no significant difference in crime levels. If you want to place a limit on a right, or something integral to the exercise of that right, you had best have a good specific reason for that limit and an understanding of what effect that will have. Doing something that seems right is NOT a good reason. If that were the case, most of the country would be I jail for saying stupid things on the internet (and there’s too much of that as well).
Hi Adam,
Certainly you don’t owe me any discussion of your views, but why not try anyway? Practice makes perfect and you might even change my mind. For my own part, I don’t need one single gun that I own. I have them because I like them. I have no better reason than that.
To be sure, a 10 round limit is a compromise, and it probably won’t be an effective one in the unlikely event that it passes. I’m sure a disturbed individual can run himself through some mag-change drills for a few weeks before he pays a visit to the Democratic national headquarters. If I were really serious, I would probably advocate an assault weapons ban similar to Australia’s, which does seem to have worked well, albeit at the expense of law-biding citizens who had to give up there semi-auto’s.
Well, Australia is a very nice country, been there a few times. This should get you the info you need for your move…
http://www.immi.gov.au/Pages/Welcome.aspx
@TominVA,
No one “needs” to make more than 10 posts to the internet. We should pass common sense legislation to force operating system’s manufactures to include “Smart Internet” technology that prohibits posting to message boards after reaching a 10 post limit. then, if after you make 10 posts on a computer, if you are one of “those people” who unreasonably ‘cling to your keyboards’, you can to visit your local police station where they would do a quick NCIC check and a community-based, subjective assessment of your past posts and your potential to do any harm with future posts. if you pass, then they reset your post counter and you can make another 10 posts, if you don’t pass your local law enforcement sign-off, then you can’t post anymore. There is a review board you can appeal to, however it is never adequately funded to accept new applications due to an always ‘temporary’ backlog, you can apply once every 6 months.
note, even with only 10 posts at a time available to anyone, for everyone’s safety, the legislation must prohibit ownership (or the constructive possession) of any software that may enable full-auto posting. ‘one post per click’ is only being reasonable.
because of the unwritten, but supreme court recognized, government mandate to educate every citizen on what is right and wrong, the legislation will have to exempt the government its self from this 10 post limit and full-auto posting. To make the most efficient use of tax revenue, private corporations who wish to assist the government on communicating ‘right and wrong’ at their own expense can apply for yearly waivers of both the 10 post limit and the full-auto limit, but separately. for everyone’s safety, there is no provision for private individuals to apply for these waivers, and we need to review each ‘legal trust’ and every other ‘artificial corporate entity’, individually to ensure they are not individuals trying to slip through as legitimate corporations. the application costs $200 and takes about 9 months to get your multi-post stamp approved.
of course the argument applies that anyone who didn’t want to follow these ‘common sense’ rules could just buy a bunch of computers and then switch to a new one after the 10 post limit is reached, so there isn’t really any impact on your freedom of speech.
for those who don’t run the predominate operating system, we need to leave the ‘home computer builder’ determination as vague as possible, at some point every home builder of computers will approach or pass the 80% complete stage where they must have a government approved system in place to prevent full-auto posting, limit all posting to only 10, and interface with their local law enforcements’ reasonable requirement to search the entire computer so they can make the determination if you should wish the 10 post limit be reset. the determination of when a home builder passes this 80% threshold shall be placed in the hands of our most trusted bureaus and agencies who can post their determinations to the federal registry, or better, just reply to each individual letter requesting a determination.
the second round of legislation closes these ‘multiple computer’, ‘public library’ and the ‘used a friend’s computer’ loopholes, we will issue a national id that must be used to digitally sign every post you make, it’s only being reasonable!
—
troll-bait aside; every “reasonable compromise” leads to another, and soon the ‘right’ you used to have is gone.
Hi Steve,
Yes I know. If you give an inch, they’ll take a mile – I believe that. But, while we have the right to keep and bear arms, I think it’s highly debatable whether that right should include high-cap mags. Where do you draw the line between an armed citizenry and a too armed citizenry. I think there probably should be such a line.
@TominVA, Where do you draw the line between an armed citizenry and a too armed citizenry.[?]
That’s easy. When a future enemy uses Maryland’s docks as a landing platform and runs roughshod at 55+mph over our national highway system towards the Capitol (or your home in Virginia). all nearby military units are leaving to stop their advance, only a few officers remain to call up the local militia to defend your town. an “armed citizenry” is capable of repulsing enemy scouts and recon patrols, maybe capturing a few POW’s to be turned over to the Military. Sadly, today’s militia is primarily tasked with stopping enemy units from breaking off into Serb style rape/kill/burn patrols (as we saw in Kosovo) where these enemy rape/kill/burn patrols are intended to do as much horrible damage as possible so that the US Government is forced to call back actual military units from the front lines to combat them in the sub-burbs. However, Due to the “armed citizenry”‘s experience with MSR’s and normal capacity magazines, after only short training drills, they are easily upgraded to military firearms broken out of the warehouses. The enemy quickly finds that when they swoop in on a random household and begin their raid, the local residents of that neighborhood are able to take up arms and, through a heavy volume of fire, eventually outgun the small raiding parties. after loosing so many small units, and never getting the abhorrent youtube videos they wanted for propaganda, the enemy eventually stops the practice.
A “too armed citizenry” exists only your nightmares after you had to bury another family who was raped, tortured and burned alive as their neighbors looked on, unable to stop just twelve guys with actual weapons from committing their horrible acts in your neighborhood. the things they did to the poor cheerleader girl while her father and brother had to watch keep you up at night. but these things only ever happened far away in Kosovo or the middle east, never here, and you were so completely sure that anyone would only ever ‘need’ 10 rounds in a magazine…
Evets Steve…
Just wow…
What an imagination.
Were the Watts Riots, 1946 Athens Tennessee, and post-Katrina New Orleans just figments of our imagination then?
Why are you focused on Australia and not switzerland?
Switzerland requires CONSCRIPTION (call it FEDERAL brainwashing if you like) in order to have ownership of a gun.
That is not remotely true. LOL.
I suggest you do more homework on Swiss gun laws.
Besides the obvious bolt actions, shotguns, and antiquated arms, how am I wrong?
It also seems that the Swiss government seems to have an almost mandatory gun registry system (OMG fascism).
Orly?, You are misinformed. BADLY.
For one, there is no “mandatory gun registry system”, that is per canton.
Not that such a registry would be theoretically effective anyways, since private sales are commonplace and can be conducted so long as the seller reasonably believes he/she isn’t selling to a criminal.
Swiss gun laws, in conclusion, are more lenient than many states in the union. They are most certainly more lenient than the US when it comes to non-citizens, interestingly enough.
since its obvious you dont know what you’re talking about, “at ease!” that shit!
You are really going to have to give me a link.
I’m not seeing much on the web disproving me on the conscription (mandatory until mid 30s).
Nor on the freie Waffen.
I’m sure everyone here has negative thoughts on the Japanese.
Who is anyone in government to tell me- a law abiding, educated, well-armed citizen- what I ‘need’ or have the right to own? Who do you think you are? If I have the money, I should be able to park an Abrams tank in my front yard. As long as I don’t do anything to harm anyone with it, why not?
What if you’re not Christian?
As someone who agrees entirely with Ab5olut3zero and is not a Christian I ask what could you possibly mean by that?
What does this have to do with anything?
The only thing I can come up with is he misread ‘citizen’…?
“If you’re not one of us, you’re clearly one of them” mentality still exists.
If they look different and have something, they “clearly” have an agenda with it.
I have to explain alot to people why Sikhs (among other minorities) aren’t a problem.
Is that you, Reed?
There’s really not much of a difference between a shooter attacking a soft-target with say.. 18, 5-round magazines vs 3, 30 round magazines. But I’m preachin to the choir.
I’m liberal and pro-gun (I actually just use my tears as CLP haha). I believe we’ll never “win” by just screaming “2A! 2A!” or carrying our AR-15s in public (an extreme example I know… but a very relevant one nonetheless). Invite your anti-gun or pro-ignorant-non-constructive-gun-control neighbor, co-worker, or friend to the range. Introduce them to other responsible, competent, experienced level-headed owners. The NRA is not the best PR for those of us who care about firearms whether for sport, living, or self-defense.
I agree with most points, but believe in a happy medium.
I’d rather bring them to a simulator/training session for shoot/no shoot scenarios as more realistic (expensive I know, but imho one of the only ways to show they WHY guns can be used properly).
Range is cheaper though, but I don’t think really works all that well as people think.
Sadly every douche in support of this gets their gun info from movies and tv shows thinking it takes a single bullet to send a man flying through a window.
Not every shot is a hit and not every hit is a man stopper, not that hard to figure out if they’d take 5 minutes on Google to look up shooting incidents instead of trying to fuck us over with this constant stream of money and time wasting bullshit.
I find it ironic, hypocritical and damn sad that movie stars make millions doing shoot em up, rail against corrupt government movies then in their personal lives get on their soap box and preach against the evils of gun ownership!! Frickin ass-hats…
When Harry Reid was the Senate Majority Leader he killed any hope of mag restrictions in January of 2013 (having had strong competition in the recent 2012 elections, and given that Nevada is a Class III state that hosts the shot show most years . . . ). If this had no hope of passing after Sandy Hook, it has less than no hope now since conservatives control both houses. The proposed legislation is nothing more than pandering to the liberal base withind each of the supporting Senators and Congressmens districts, so as to posture for their primaries and general election in 2016. In the end, the best the legislators supporting this bill can hope for is donations and votes by their base. Repeat that enough to everyone you know and perhaps the machiavellian nature of their scheme will offend some of their misguided supporters.
The USA has an obesity problem. Pass a law such that no one may order an ice cream cone with more than one scoop, where the scooper utilizes a circular scooping device no greater than 1.75 inches in diameter. That’ll make sure we all stay thin!
One simple way to put this into perspective is to introduce legislation that won’t allow cars to go over a certain speed limit.
Some states are trying to do something similar by heavily taxing things like sodas so I wouldn’t laugh too much at the idea. I think that SSD has a real good analogy, if the libs are so concerned about safety then they should mandate that all cars have speed governors installed as well as require them to all have breathalyzers installed so no one can get into their car if they’ve had a few too many. While we’re at it, they need to also mandate some sort of device inside all cars to disable the texting capabilities of cell phone.
#nomorehashtags
#knowyourenemy
After seeing this last night, I dug down and read the actual text of the bill and it’s even worse than you’d think.
Check out the relevant text:
‘‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding
10 device’— 2
OLL15133 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip,
2 helical feeding device, or similar device, including
3 any such device joined or coupled with another in
4 any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that
5 can be readily restored, changed, or converted to ac-
6 cept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
7 ‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular de-
8 vice designed to accept, and capable of operating
9 only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Notice the words “readily restored, changed, or converted” – unless the rifle or shotgun has a fixed tubular magazine or internal magazine that cannot be changed, it’s going to be banned.
Remington 870? Banned. Remington 700? Banned. SKS? Banned.
Thanks man.
Yup and it seems that those democrats are completely oblivious to one of the many reasons why they got clobbered in senate, congressional, and municipal seats…
gee i wonder why?
Keep it up anti-gunners. Your pet rock will be your undoing.
M1
Expect more “legislation” from the dems like this. They know they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting it through the House, but it is done for theater. After it is defeated, Obama can use it as an issue where “Congress isn’t doing its job” to take executive action and appease the appetites for statism on both coasts.
Interestingly enough, the co-sponsors (except for Deutch) of the bill come from states where there are already bans or limits, so they have no risk of political fallout from constituents since their constituents are living under similar state laws today. This is little excursion to test Republican unity and defenses, and should be recognized as such. It is all about optics.
The mentally ill Isla Vista shooter still managed to kill people with a car, a blunt object, a knife, and legally configured California “roster approved” firearms with California legal 10 round magazines. Chicago and DC both have very extensive bans that do nothing to curb criminal violence. If they were serious, there wouldn’t be any of this nonsense in any bills to address “mental illness”. What they would fund is research, outreach, assistance to private and religious groups, advocate physical exercise, and studies on medications. This is just designed to polarize.
If they care for innocent human lives, like they claim, do they advocate cars that won’t go over 55/65/75, shorter cigarettes (or just cigarettes with tobacco only), smaller cheeseburgers, or low capacity booze bottles? More people suffer or die from vehicle accidents, cancer, heart disease/obesity, and alcohol related issues. Statistically, hammers are used to murder more people than “assault weapons”, so they don’t advocate licensing hammers or banning “larger” hammers. That would appear to be silly and also politically risky when identified as such. I doubt anyone would make the strawman argument that you don’t need a bigger hammer, bigger cheeseburger, faster car, or 40 ounce King Cobra in response.
I agree totally, great post. One can walk into any store, bank or school with a fully loaded “tool belt” complete with hammers, saws, duct tape and carpenter knife and no one would blink an eye that that person is carrying all they need to subdue, restrain and kill within that “tool belt”.
“and legally configured California “roster approved” firearms with California legal 10 round magazines.”
Yet another strong argument for a total ban.
Then turn in your own weapons. If you wish to make an argument for a total ban, and see this as the “right” and moral thing to do, start with yourself. If you aren’t willing to live under the rules you advocate, you’re a hypocrite and are not intellectually honest. Doesn’t a movement start with one person?
If you qualify your reasons for not turning in your own guns by “if I thought a total ban would work, I would…”, then you’re not willing to take the steps necessary to achieve your own goals, so why would you think someone else would do it for you. Are you not responsible for yourself?
Otherwise, making an emotionally based “argument” based on a litany of fraudulent logic, straw man attacks, fake compromises, use emotion to illicit some sort of fake sympathy (“I’m a gun owner, too”), lack of understanding of history (“it works in Australia or the UK” for their SUBJECTS), and an inaccurate view of reality (completely discounting the fact that criminals and insane people don’t follow laws) won’t get you too far. Go back to Saul Alinski 101 or your ACORN coffee klatsch.
When your argument is too transparent to your underlying motive that you are trying to conceal, it isn’t very persuasive. You may be able to get the hippie girls to jump in the sack with you with this argument (and a bag of weed), but you’re out of your league here. You do have a right to say what you want to say, but we also have the same right to laugh at you.
Eric +1
TominVA,
I believe you are being sincere and I know you have made similar comments on this subject in the past. You have every right to your opinion and am not going to try to change your mind.
But I presume you believe in the Constitution. ALL of the Constitution…not just the bits you personally agree with?
The US Constitution is not just a random cluster of unconnected ideas.
It is a coherent description of the desired relationship between the citizens of this Republic and their government.
If you read it, you will see that the document specifically assigns responsibilities to five basic entities. The three branches of the Federal Government, the States and to the individual citizen.
One of the responsibilities levied on the citizen is that he or she be prepared to assist in the defense of their communities and the nation.
That is why the “militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment is purposely linked to the individuals right to bear arms. The founders didn’t do that by accident.
In short, if you choose to be unarmed (and untrained) you are abdicating one of your key responsibilities under the Constitution as a citizen.
You have the right to make that decision for yourself but not for the rest of us.
The individual right to bear arms has nothing to do with recreation or sport or even ensuring your personal safety.
It is ultimately about having the will and the means to support and defend our way of life and the ideals described in the Constitution.
And yes, having standard sized magazines for your weapons is perfectly reasonable to meet that obligation.
TLB
Two Thumbs Up Terry!
Now if we do happen to get invaded, say California coast….are they, the invaders, also mandated to carry only 10 round magazines? I mean it’s a law right?
Will the U.N. step in and make this a requirement for all nations?
The “invasion” theory again?
AGAIN?
I was being sarcastic…..As in if we must have a limit then do we say to any invading army, “Hey, those 30/19 round mags are totally no-go buster!”
I truly think they’ll ask about the tanks, USCG cutters, USN fleet, artillery, and air support before they ask about rounds zigging over their heads.
Hi Terry,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I’m not an expert on 2d Amendment arguments, but I’ll offer a few thoughts.
Regarding citizen responsibility and the right to bear arms: my reading of the bill of rights gives me the impression that it’s a letter, if you will, to government delineating what it cannot do i.e., the people’s right to keep and bear arms is presupposed and it shall not be infringed. Citizen responsibility is not mentioned.
The militia component is very interesting. As you suggest, a cursory reading leads one to believe that the purpose of this right is to ensure the availability of a militia to guarantee the security of the state. Important as that is, and while you or I may infer responsibility, the 2d Amendment does not say so. It is a right, one to be exercised at the discretion of the citizen. I could make a compelling case otherwise, but as you imply, the founders were smart guys – “right” prevailed over “responsibility” in the final text. I think that’s important.
Something else. The term militia has an important qualifier that precedes it: “well regulated.” As citizens committed to the security of this free state, how many of those who visit this sight maintain their firearms as part of their duty as members of well-regulated militias (and here I define well-regulated as being militias aka national guards sanctioned by any one the 50 state governments)? How many gun-owners period?
I have thought about the militia argument many times. You could certainly make the case that per the 2d Amendment, each household is permitted one service rifle per service-aged man or woman with additional exceptions for hunting rifles and shotguns based on vocation and need e.g., farmers and ranchers. For these militia members, there would of course be state regulated compulsory training.
But I don’t think that’s what most of us here really want. I think mostly we want our guns for recreation, for sport, and for personal safety.
“Something else. The term militia has an important qualifier that precedes it: “well regulated.””
Per 18th century dictionary, “well regulated” means, of course, “in proper working order” as in “properly equipped”.
That means *drum roll* AR15s and standard capacity mags.
“As citizens committed to the security of this free state, how many of those who visit this sight maintain their firearms as part of their duty as members of well-regulated militias (and here I define well-regulated as being militias aka national guards sanctioned by any one the 50 state governments)? How many gun-owners period?”
I do. Alongside many others.
” For these militia members, there would of course be state regulated compulsory training.”
What?
“the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable” – Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton
I respectfully disagree.
I always view “regulated” as in standards in discipline/training. Not equipment.
Not everyone is trained in combined arms, as it takes training/discipline to fight cohesively and effectively in tanks, ships, and planes.
Throwing in a dozen of people that know how to shoot, does not mean they know how to fight effectively.
You are not disagreeing with me. That is part of the meaning of “well regulated”. “in properly working order”. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The facts about the intent and meaning (18th century) of well regulated are exactly how I highlighted.
“Throwing in a dozen of people that know how to shoot, does not mean they know how to fight effectively.”
You are wayyy missing the point.
Militias have always lagged behind professional armies as far as cohesion and discipline goes, but often times, militias have been victorious in battles. The history is hit and miss.
The point is the people having a means to resist to begin with.
TominVA,
I always enjoy discussing the Constitution. It is a subject near and dear to my heart.
Books have been written on the subject by better writers than me. But here goes.
If you read what the founders wrote leading up to drafting the Constitution itself you can find their intent clearly articulated.
We are lucky that the founders lived in an era when only the printed word existed as “mass media”.
Therefore they wrote in great detail about this idea of a functioning “Republic” in which the individual citizen can exercise the maximum individual freedom while accepting a collective responsibility or obligation to his fellow citizens.
These ideas were very publicly pondered, debated, attacked and defended for years prior to, during and long after the Revolutionary War before it all coalesced into the Constitution we now have.
The components of the Constitution are deliberately inter-dependent. Freedom of the Press is protected – not for the press’s own sake – but because an unfettered (and honest) press is critical to keeping the citizenry informed.
It is also no accident that the founders quickly moved in accordance with the principles in the Constitution to establish or support a national level postal service, local libraries and primary education for everyone.
They believed that to be successful a Republic needed reasonably educated and informed citizens in order for them (the citizens) to fully participate in the process of governance.
Freedom of association is protected from unwarranted government oversight so that we can band together as necessary to “seek redress of grievances” or petition the government for whatever purpose we may see fit.
The Declaration of Independence speaks to ensuring “the common defense” and the 2d Amendment to the Constitution is directly extrapolated from that idea.
The term “militia”, as the founders described it, is a broader concept that the modern National Guard. The founders considered every able bodied male (now every able bodied citizen) as a potential member of the militia to be called out by appropriate authorities at any time for almost any purpose.
And as a citizen, you were expected to show up and do your duty. Probably the most common historical use of the “militia” was the forming of a “posse”. Citizens called out to reinforce law enforcement and expected to show up with their own weapons, ammunition, transportation and supplies – usually unpaid – for the duration of a crisis.
When merchants during the LA riots and most recently in Ferguson, MO. armed and posted themselves to protect their stores they were clearly performing the traditional “militia” function as the founders described it many times.
Those self actualized “militiamen” were not only doing what was right to support and defend their property but also their communities. They also freed up law enforcement resources that could therefore be used elsewhere.
Those shop owners had the will and the means to act in “the common defense”. Their actions were not only legal but also righteous under the Constitution.
I think you are trying just a little to hard to ignore the clear intent of the founders as it relates to the 2nd Amendment – or any of the other Amendments for that matter. Look at them in the context of the base document (the Constitution) first.
The Founders didn’t articulate their intent for the citizenry to be armed, or to be able to participate in the “organized or unorganized” militia” to no purpose.
The founders saw the entire militia concept as critical to the maintenance of a free state, i.e. a Republic. I’m not inferring that the armed citizen has a role…the founders state that the citizen has that responsibility, obligation and duty.
TLB
Some would also say the same in terms of gangs and extremist militias.
Things can EASILY get out of hand.
Take The Hatfields and McCoys.
Who was right? Who was wrong?
They BOTH escalated the situation to the point that part of that country was going to encounter another Civil War over a PIG.
The many gangs of several cities claim to be created with the idea of “self-defense” for a particular minority or a “piece of turf.”
Which ones are lying?
When people in general have the “I’m NEVER wrong mentality” things almost always spiral out of control.
Once blood begets blood, things NEVER stay simple.
orly,
Coincidentally I live about 30 miles from the events of the Hatfields and McCoys. Interesting local history.
The Constitution enshrines and protects individual liberties above almost anything.
But the Founding Fathers were definitely not anarchists and they didn’t envision a nation where it would be “every man a law unto himself”.
They believed firmly in the rule of law but within a construct that was very revolutionary for the time.
The concept of innocent until proven guilty was meant to give the accused a fighting chance” against the government. The idea was that it was better to risk letting a certain number of the guilty go free rather than jail an innocent man.
Criminal enterprises, gangs or families feuding are in no way supportive of the ideals of the Republic. And all of those things are of course prohibited by various laws that are already written in accordance with the Constitution.
A gang member shooting someone to protect his “turf” for which he has no legal ownership is just a criminal and his illegal actions are in no way equivalent to those examples I used above.
Finally, reference your comment below. The militia is not expected to be at the same proficiency level as full time military or law enforcement personnel.
It would be unreasonable to expect them to be and the Constitution doesn’t demand that level of expertise.
The militia (unorganized or organized) is expected to be utilized for tasks commensurate with whatever skill level they might have. Freeing up the more highly trained for the harder jobs.
However, if the crisis is large enough and lasts long enough, the “militia” can be trained to a higher level as in your Revolutionary War example.
That is the modern rationale for registration for the Draft, i.e. keeping a roster of currently unorganized militia that can be “called up” and trained in an emergency.
TLB
Ah, the Draft.
Interesting subject.
I would also like to stress the training aspect of the Founding Father’s time.
You can easily hand an American a gun, and show him how to shoot.
But if he had no training, he would not know what to do next with the musket.
It was quite abit of training to load properly, when to shoot (each line in intervals I believe), and when not to reload and instead charge.
All of this fighting was best done by men trained as a unit, rather than individually.
This organization and leadership eventually made the Siege of Yorktown possible.
Again, you are missing the point.
Armed insurgents/guerrillas/militia or whatever you want to address them as are not intended to go toe to toe with the adversary’s standing army.
They are intended to harass, raid, ambush, etc, i.e. irregular warfare.
Yorktown was the last step of a successful revolution.
TominVA,
I forgot to speak to your assertion that “right” somehow “prevails over responsibility” as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. Not correct.
You have the individual right to bear arms and therefore the government is restrained from infringing that right.
But that right doesn’t exist disconnected from the rest of the Constitution. You are in fact expected to exercise that right so that you can be part of that “common defense”.
You can choose to shirk that responsibility.
And the burden of the common defense will be shouldered by other citizens without you.
You have the right to vote. And that means that the government cannot place unreasonable restrictions on your access to exercising that right.
But the Founders just as clearly expected a citizen to accept the responsibility of voting and fully engaging in the process of governance.
In short, a citizen’s rights and responsibilities are as inseparable as two sides of the same coin.
In my opinion, a true citizen accepts all of his or her responsibilities within our system…at least as passionately as they cherish their rights.
TLB
In that sense, one must look back at American history and be curious on the Civil Rights era.
Common “Americans” raised arms against the movement in one of the most violently way possible (keep in mind actual BOMBING of populated civilian/religious structures occurred).
Yet when the targeted minorities reacted to the way you prescribed, NRA approved gun control laws were passed by the great Reagan himself were enacted (Mulford Act).
IMHO, if Americans “cherished their rights” in the way you prescribed, the Civil Rights Era should have been one perpetual Civil War had Americans not follow a new “golden standard” of peaceful protest.
orly,
I think that the Civil Rights era actually proved that the system of government that the Founders put in place worked.
Despite being marred by some egregious – and illegal – violence, determined citizens, through largely peaceful means, forced our laws and culture to evolve into something better.
In other words, a segment of the society sought redress of a grievance, persevered and made enormous change happen as per the founders vision.
And for the most part it was the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment that were most applicable to that fight. Not the 2nd.
TLB
One last thing orly,
The Founders clearly had a high regard for an armed citizenry in order to support and defend the Constitutional ideals. Thus it is addressed “up front” in the 2nd Amendment.
They recognized that firearms can also be used by a very small portion of the population for illegal and destructive purposes.
But that risk was far out weighted by the benefits to the Republic of enabling everyone to have the means to actively engage in “the common defense”.
The Founders believed that they had built in enough mechanisms in our system of government for almost any grievance to be redressed peacefully.
The “2nd Amendment solution” as some people refer to armed resistance to some government “tyranny” is purposely designed to be a last resort…not the default option.
TLB
Yet some still overtly advocate secession and revolution as the default solution for the present situation.
Yet the Civil Rights era Americans had to suffer immensely much more violence and death.
Again, quite curious.
Self Correction: The Declaration of Independence speaks of “safety” and “security” but it is in the preamble to the Constitution itself where the phase “the common defense” appears.
My bad.
TLB
Can SSD implement a like button for this post?
Hi Eric,
If I turn in my weapons, will you? Of course not. Nor would…well…pretty much anyone else. That’s why we need government to make us all behave even when we don’t want to – for the common good. Nothing hypocritical about that. I think I’m being pretty honest.
If you’re laughing at me, that’s fine, but you don’t sound like it. You sound sort of angry.
I enjoyed the hippie girls crack though.
Your credibility is lost when you are unwilling to do yourself what you claim other must do.
“That’s why we need government to make us”… this tells all who you really are, a sheep in need of a shepherd.
*others
I must really learn to proof read before posting. sigh…
This ^ +1
I am so sick of people clamoring for government intervention on this and that. Deal with shit on your own without begging for father fed to sweep away those that don’t want to play by your rules.
Not everybody will share your idea of “the common good”, just by your statements I know mine differs for sure. No being or entity could ever persuade me to give up my arms by any means, and I’m sure many others think the same.
Like others have said, you want to be without, do it yourself, don’t expect the rest of us to follow. You want a limit, limit yourself, I’ll have no part of it, if I’m made a criminal for it or not.
Why would I? I don’t advocate bans, limits, new laws, or turning in anything. Actually it is the other way around. Government regulation and over reach is the problem, not the solution.
Government is not needed to “make us behave” (that comment speaks volumes about you). You had mommy and daddy to do that, and change your diapers when dirty. The rest of us should have grown out of the need for a nanny.
All your other comments are a distraction to hide behind as opposed to facing hypocrisy. Go back to swapping war stories with Brian Williams.
Eric,
“Government is not needed to “make us behave””
I’m sure you’re not entirely serious. Would you really rather go without law enforcement? The people need a line they know they shouldn’t cross. If anything, government needs to do a better job of it. Do you slow down when you suspect a speed trap on the other side of the hill? But you would agree that speed limits are generally a good thing right?
We’re none of us as good or responsible or considerate…or law-biding…as we often give ourselves credit for.
You are pathetic. Please tell me you’re a foreigner. I hope to God you’re not this weak and an American.
Hi Primuspilus,
I’m pretty sure you missed my point. No worries. It’s just a discussion.
I know what your point is and I know what your goal is; so did the Founders and the Framers and that’s why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights that codifies the God given right of self defense against infringement by any individuals, organizations or governments.
The Bill of Rights specifically designates those Rights which are guaranteed to The People and completely beyond the control of the State and Federal governments and any attempt to abridge or deny those Rights are completely illegitimate and illegal.
Your problem is that you don’t like the Rights that Americans enjoy and you want to fundamentally change America thus, you are unAmerican.
An armed populace are citizens; an unarmed populace are subjects.
“UnAmerican.”
So they don’t deserve to live or have the other freedoms of Americans, no matter how good they are or what they do.
Such concepts.
^^ TominVA, your above statement reminds of that great line….”You didn’t build that, the government did!”
Government is fine as long as it’s kept in check. Remember “For the people, by the people”? So yes let’s have speed limits and regulations on food prep and safety for flying, etc. but to limit a magazine by 6 bullets and think that that will deter crime or shootings is nonsense.
TominVA,
In our Republic the government does not, should not and cannot function separate from the citizen.
By our informed consent, the Federal and State and Local governments are empowered to act in our name.
But we (citizens) own all of it to include every policy or law that has even been enacted by our elected officials. The good and the bad.
The citizen always has a responsibility to make the government “behave” in a manner we find appropriate.
Not the other way around.
And be careful with saying you support something because it is for the common or “greater good”.
That has been the mantra of many a tyrant throughout history.
TLB
Hey Terry,
I guess I take a more textual approach to interpretation for two reasons: 1) I really know very little about the arguments surrounding the amendments and 2) regardless of the arguments and intent, the founders settled on the text we have. They did not vote on the federalist papers. The text we have is what matters most.
I would never advocate something for the greater good outside of our political process.
Regarding militias, whatever the founders’ vision, I see a huge difference between a citizen defending his property (and self), and state sanctioned armed force, well organized, trained, and subject to military discipline. Someone else mentioned the Swiss example (do they still do that?) and that is more along the lines of what I’m thinking; and a much better option than a bunch of bubbas showing up with a wide range of weapons and equipment, a wider range of ability, and a level of personal commitment that will vary greatly by individual, days away from home, danger and privation, and pay.
I think we’ve beat this post enough. Thanks for the talk and until next time, cheers.
Tom
TominVA,
I agree that we two have sparred with each other enough for now.
I’ll end with this. We don’t have to guess what the Founding Fathers meant when they use terms like “well regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment.
They explained the concept in great detail to the citizens of the day both in their writings and then legally codified the idea in what I believe was / is referred to as US Code.
So your personal definition (or mine) of what a “well regulated militia” is or should be is irrelevant. What the Founders said it meant is what it means.
I’d ask you to think about that. Until next time.
TLB
The line of course, is at “well behaved” and “subjugated”.
We dont necessarily “need” government to intervene all of the time. That only works so long as there is someone there to “intervene” and make us behave.
The more sensible solution is individual accountability. Every time you invite government to “make people behave”, the consequences often turn out bad.
Amen.
To:TominVA
You have been weighed on the scales and found deficient.
+1
Please note TominVA does NOT speak for Virginia!!!!!!! Maybe DC or NOVA
Hi Shooter,
I’m pretty confident no one thinks I speak for anyone but myself, but thanks.
Keep it up dems.
You are succeeding in drawing more republicans to the office and chasing democrats out.
What was the definition of “insanity” again?
+1
These progs are the worst.
Week by week, more and more, they resemble the German Nazis with their desire for an all powerful State intruding into the lives of citizens who rely on the State for all manner of things; not just social policies either, in economics trade as well, they have chosen which corporations will profit through collaboration with the State.
We must be rid of them as a nation or our people will be finished. I can’t imagine that the Founders ever thought such a weak type of people would be amongst The People that would inherit their grand experiment of this great nation.
Conservatives do too, just pick you poison.
Republicans have their own brand of stupidity that is not the subject on here today.