Welded up corner number 3.
Had a back and forth with a Facebook friend today about guns. Thanks to the major media, this person was confused about the term assault rifle and how they have no place in target practice or hunting. This was my response: Assault rifles are RAPID-FIRE, magazine-fed AUTOMATIC rifles designed for military use. They are NOT AVAILABLE for the general public. My AR-15 is a semi auto...meaning one bullet per trigger pull - great for target practice and I don't "blow my targets apart" with it. It is also a useful home defense tool. AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt. 74,92,60,0,B,0
34 comments:
Just tell your friend to Google Suzanna Hupp and watch a few youtube videos including her congressional testimony. No one can say it better.
Amen man! Oh and thanks for the AR tidbit. I knew it was not the type of assault rifle that doesn't belong on the streets but I didn't know it stood for ArmaLite.
Semi-automatics can kill a bunch of people quick like the theater showing the midnight showing of Batman. Most can also be easily converted to full automatic while some started as full automatic and were changed by the manufacturer to semi-automatic to sell to the mass market.
I dont believe its an issue, the right to bear arms is not negotiable. Those who don't want to bear arms are fine with me too. Those who don't like the rights we have and don't want to live in a free country are FREE TO MOVE!
well here's a question. Do we think the "arms" that our forefathers were thinking of protecting the rights of included things like machine guns, or bazookas or RPG's?
If all of these are "arms", are they not allowed by the Constitution because they are "arms"?
who decides what is and is not - based on which criteria?
is the law absolute?
is it any more (or less) absolute than the right to free speech to shout FIRE in a theater?
Isn't it ironic that in Aurora - you could have been arrested for using your "free speech" but it was fine to haul a gun in there with a 30-clip magazine?
Sometimes I think we have a "dumb" gene encoded in our DNAs.
As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that its protections of free speech and freedom of the press are not a green light to abandon the protection of our vital national interests. Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.”
In light of this rationalization, often used, I thought it would be instructive to take a look at the Supreme Court decision.
The case was Schenck v. US, brought before the Supreme Court in 1919.
The case against Shenck was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, which prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America’s enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment
Schenck’s crime was printing and distributing 15,000 leaflets that opposed the World War I draft.
Today, I think, in light of Vietnam, we would all support Schenck’s right to oppose the war.
But not then.
Schenck’s lawyers argued First Amendment and in a decision that was rather shocking in its clear abrogation of First Amendment Free Press rights, the court created the ‘clear and present danger’ clause, which noted that Free Speech could, in effect, be overridden by that speech creating a ‘clear and present danger’, particularly in time of war.
Justice Holmes used the term ‘shouting fire in a crowded theater’ as an example of creating a ‘clear and present danger’.
Schenck was ultimately overturned in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, defending the right to free speech, and repalcing the clear and present danger clause with a very restrictive need to prove ‘imminent danger’. Free Speech was stronger, until now.
Although shouting ‘fire in a crowded theater’ is bandied about all the time, Holmes himself never suggested that you could ban shouting fire ina a crowded theater if the theater is on fire.
As the Wikileaks clearly point out – the theater is indeed on fire.
The US government has lied repeatedly about atrocities in Iraq (for example).
No one has accused any of the wikileaks of being lies.
On the contrary, the very ‘danger’ in them is that they are all true.
All too true.
And what they are really is embarassing to the government, to many governments.
So yes, Sen Feinstein, Julian Assange is indeed yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater’
And with good reason.
The theater is on fire.
Time to get out.
so why are RPGs illegal for most citizens to own?
I dont know! but what I do know, IZ that even though they are illegal , many people have them anyway. So I guess if one of those RPG owning criminals pull up in front of your house, ( even though its against the law) you could call the police and tell the criminals to wait until the police get there.
re: criminals
where would you get ammo for RPGs without bring the ATF down on your sorry butt?
but how did things like RPGs and bazooka, tanks, stinger missiles, etc get banned if they are "constitutional"?
and owning one seems like a good way to lose everything you own and spend some time in a govt facility for perhaps a long time if they tell the judge that you are a terrorist.
right?
lets play out this senario :
Criminals- If they get caught ( most who own RPGs and the explosive amo, are very good at not getting caught) they go to a federal hotel. get free health care and room and board. They find jesus inside and get saved and go to heaven later. <-- just stating a popular belief in the Christian United States 76.5 % 159 billion americans identify as christian ( majority )
Victim- get terrorized , might fire off a few shot gun shells before they get exploded . depending on who the victim family is they might not be saved and even though they are the victim in this crime they go to hell. <--- another popular belief the majority would agree with
If the above were all true I would say its a good idea for only the criminals to have guns if they would only shoot saved innocent victims, who are for sure to go directly to heaven.
but since I don't know for sure what really happens after death for anyone, I would say I would rather have any weapon I would choose in order to protect me and mine.or maybe, If I feel good about my eternal future I might choose not buy them and just choose to be blown up and be sitting on a cloud looking down on the rest of you.
SHORT VERSION IS - show up at my place and try to kill me or mine you could get dead. big deterrence!
Oh man, no better way to stir up a mess of an Internet argument than to mention gun control.
Just wanted to add, to further confuse the issue, that there is the similar-sounding-but-completely-different term "assault weapon".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
well, we're straying mightily away from how "arms" get defined and some are not "Constitutional" even though they are "arms".
If we can outlaw RPGs why can't we outlaw AR 15s or any weapon that has a 30 round clip?
so we can shout FIRE in a theater and go to jail but if we go into same same theater toting a gun with a 15 round clip - no problem?
I mean if you walked into that theater with plastic explosives you'd be illegal but if you have 3 clips of 30 round magazines, you're good?
It's not the AR 15 per se but why can you not have an automatic AR but you can have a 30-round clip AR when both of them fit the Constitutional definition of "arms"?
Anyone got a non-partisan reasonable explanation?
It seems to me that restricting any/all "arms" is unConstitutional if you read the Constitution literally - no matter if it is an automatic or not.
bonus question:
do you think the writers of the Constitution would consider automatic weapons and RPGs to be legally owned arms?
read back again on what I wrote about the 1st amendment -- it answers your Yelling FIRE in the theater distraction and really in good conscience you shouldnt use it anymore.
I understand why you want someone else to answer why some weapons are legal and others are not. Short answer is , the majority allowed it to happen that way.
But if you can sway enough people to agree with you to outlaw the AR 15 then you would accomplish that end eventually.
I hope people wake up and get tired of the ever shrinking box of freedom they are living in and decide to go back to a larger one.
Im not one to believe that the majority is always right or should be followed.
In the United States of America, the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right to hunt, target practice, etc. As Thomas Jefferson said, "..reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
The 2nd Amendment is settled. Critics of 2nd amendment, if you want others to give up their 2nd Amendment rights, you first give up your 1st Amendment rights. Besides, who are you to decide which amendments are more important to follow than others?
Good grief...the arrogance is mindboggling.
well I read your "fire" tome and truthfully found it convoluted and illogical...
try again... slow...more clear...
in terms of what people want and "freedom" that's a bigger and more substantiative question but in general your "freedom" ends when others are threatened by you.
your property rights END at the end of your nose and when others have to put up with incursions from you - they'll take a vote and your "liberty" will be restricted the same way it is - across the board - from speech to arms to polluting to anything than intrudes on other 'rights'.
right?
" bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
and if you went up against the US military would that mean you have a right to own the same arms they do?
otherwise, you're toast right?
and all you can do then is kill 30 people in a theater.
right?
Schenck was ultimately overturned in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, defending the right to free speech, and repalcing the clear and present danger clause with a very restrictive need to prove ‘imminent danger’. Free Speech was stronger, until now.
Although shouting ‘fire in a crowded theater’ is bandied about all the time, Holmes himself never suggested that you could ban shouting fire ina a crowded theater if the theater is on fire.
whats hard to understand about that? right?
you said:
in terms of what people want and "freedom" that's a bigger and more substantiative question but in general your "freedom" ends when others are threatened by you.
Im sure you don't mean that anyone could be feel threatened by what I could have in my home which they don't see or know about? Why would someone else's feelings over rule the USConstitution and bill of rights?
I agree there have been many occasions where congressmen and other government officials had made laws ( voting in or out thus changing the law) concerning areas they have been forbidden to do so. When they enter office they swear on the constitution to uphold it. I think that when any american who swears to uphold the constitution in their public office and outrightly goes against it, should be removed don't you think. Or maybe no one should swear to uphold the constitution any more?
the point that people cannot shout FIRE - WHEN THERE IS a fire is nonsense.
there are many examples of laws that allow what is otherwise illegal to be done in an emergency.
" you don't mean that anyone could be feel threatened by what I could have in my home which they don't see or know about?"
if enough people feel threatened by a particular behavior - yes.
have you heard of building codes and aggressive driving, etc?
The Constitution allows laws to be written.
Many laws and regulations get written IN RESPONSE to perceived or real threats to others property rights.
reckless driving is a law that restricts your rights and it was/is Constitutional to do that.
i knew this wasn't gonna end with 2 comments this morning.
Im not arguing that if someone is threatening then they are comiting a crime.
I said: why would they feel threatened by what they DONT KNOW is in my house. In other words no one has to know if I bought a weapon through the mail and kept it out of sight and in a safe place in my house. that works doesnt it?
as far as other illegal behavior that is in public view; I wasnt talking about it. I was talking about gun rights mainly and responding to your 2nd amendment comments at times.
I feel strongly about personal freedom that doesnt infringe on others freedoms. And I feel strongly about any public servant who goes against what they swore to uphold even though it is allowed at times.
" I said: why would they feel threatened by what they DONT KNOW is in my house. In other words no one has to know if I bought a weapon through the mail and kept it out of sight and in a safe place in my house. that works doesnt it?"
if laws are passed on the basis that certain actions are considered a threat - made illegal - then it don't matter if it is covert or not, right?
I mean the MOB could make your argument about their activities.
My point is that if others, a majority think that a behavior is one that constitutes a possible threat then they will act to restrict it no matter if covert or not.
You cannot legally harbor an RPG or a 55 gal drum of explosives in your house and just because you keep it under wraps does not make it legal.
You are protected from illegal searches as long as they do not have justifiable cause but it still does not give you a legal right to engage in an illegal activity.
you seem to think you have a legal right as long as it's out of sight?
No rifle is an 'assault' rifle until it is used to 'assualt' somebody. I'm not terribly afraid of someone 'spraying and praying' with an AK/AR rifle as I am with the guy with the bolt-action scoped rifle at any distance or the shotgun at close range. Those are the weapons you really should fear. Unless the person assaulting you is some gov't trained thug, the guy with the shotgun beats the pistol/smg guy everytime.
re: " I'm not terribly afraid of someone 'spraying and praying' with an AK/AR rifle as I am with the guy with the bolt-action scoped rifle"
do you think the folks in the Aurora theater would agree?
How about Gabby Gifford and fellow victims?
How about Va Tech?
Clearly someone with a high capacity clip in close confines with a lot of vulnerable people - most would not agree with your view.
I do not consider the AR by itself any more deadly than the scope/bolt combo but when you add a high capacity clip - that's in the same game as an RPG - IMHO of course.
We don't reason clearly on these issues.
we think in binary.
What I basically asked was WHY some KINDS of weapons are determined more dangerous than OTHER weapons and NOT treated as Constitutional ARMS.
If we can say an RPG is too dangerous without violating the Constitution why can't we use similar logic on other weapons?
What is a a logical rule?
or is it just plain arbitrary?
I'm not even a believer that gun laws guarantee less carnage so I'm leaving the door open here.
Oy!....like I said, AR does not stand for assualt rifle - that's all.
no I think all arms should be legal as long as they are on your property and not in public. But I dont own any of those kinds of things if that is what you are getting at.
Wow, this is almost as good as the responses to John's Sunday posts.
My 2 cents:
The founders of this country and the authors of the Constitution believed that the general citizenry should keep and bear arms in the equivalency of those who they may have to oppose. The founders never would have suggested that the citizenry be armed only with tomahawks when the forces they oppose were armed with guns. Today's laws are a piecemeal attempt to totally disarm the US public. The limitation of civilian's to non military weapons goes against the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was not wrote into the Bill of Rights for sporting and hunting. It was to defend against a tyrannical government. Ask anyone who has fired a 30 or 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar or rocket, just how effective they are against small semi-auto arms. If the SHTF and the government goes bonkers, many of those who now fear automatic weapons, will surely wish they had one.
re: " The founders"
so we all should be able to own RPGs and stingers..etc?
I think your answer is more logical an principled but can you imagine Air Force 1 or Dulles Airport "working" with hundreds of stinger rocket owners?
can you imagine an Air Craft carrier or a Trident Sub returning to port with hundreds of Tomahawks aimed at them?
hundreds of drones would head to the White House with an unpopular President?
so what is your thinking about these things?
Very interesting discussion today. Thanks for sparking it, John. Also, thanks for the education about the "AR". I am a second amendment advocate, but, choose not to own firearms.
Just my opinion, but I don't think the act of merely owning ANY weapon should be illegal. It's what you DO with that weapon that might be illegal and make you end up in prison.
I used to own a fork. It made me fat. As a result, forks are outlawed at my house.
Y'all sound like a bunch of middle school kids at recess.
andy , sounds more like one agent provocateur and other normal americans having a conversation to me...
Please, it is magazine not clip, a clip loads a magazine, a magazine is part of a firearm. Getting that one small part of the argument right will be step forward in having people think you are informed enough to have an opinion worth listening to...
re: clip , magazine
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Clip-Carbinemag.jpg
I don't think too many could describe the specific parts of a stringer missile or REP nor would they need to to understand the level of killing power.
right?
I own guns, no hand guns or ARs but sufficient to repeal an intruder and I do go practice every so often to keep me familiar with the operation so if I need to use it quick - I know how.
I support the 2nd amendment also.
and I actually AGREE with those who think our forefathers probably wanted some sort of citizen arms equity but I'm not sure they really appreciated just how deadly "arms" could become and I doubt seriously that they'd agree that all citizens should be able to own any weapon if it meant they could use that weapon to take down an airliner of sink an aircraft carrier or kill a thousand innocent people.
I'll even agree that there is no way to keep all deadly weapons out of all hands... if someone wants an RPG or stinger bad enough - they're probably going to get one.
but I also cannot imagine a world where dozens, hundred of stinger missiles are in residential homes around LAX or O'Hare, Dulles, etc.
why is all of this relevant?
because we've already decided that some weapons cannot be legitimately in average civilian hands and I presume it's been tested at the SCOTUS level and deemed Constitutional.
... AND I was TRULY INTERESTED in hearing some reasonable thoughts about what the current criteria for weapons that cannot be owned actually is...
I never imagined that we'd be talking about anyone owning a stinger or RPG as long as they "kept" in our their own property.
And I'm pretty sure if a Texas Ranger showed up on your property and saw an RPG - you'd be in a heap of trouble.
oh.. and yeah.. I've see Red Dawn and Mad Max a bunch of times!
:-)
Post a Comment