• US Supreme Court soon to decide on whether or not Assault Weapon Bans are Constitutional
    146 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;48916238]The militia is an arm of the government. In fact, it is the primary military force of the government. They are obligated to arm and train the militia because thebmilitia works for the federal government. Today we call them the national guard.[/QUOTE]Actually no, the militia itself is defined as an apparatus of the people in 10 US Code §311 and the National Guard is the "organized militia." They're distinct, and what is defined as "the unorganized militia" is all able-bodied men from the ages of 17-45 that are or intend to become citizens of the United States. They're not an apparatus of the government because that would defeat the point of the 2nd Amendment, the unorganized militia is an institution that provides a check (the founding fathers loved those) against state and federal power, especially after the debate about how big the federal government should actually be. [QUOTE=Swilly;48916744]You obviously don't realize a lot of militias have vets in their ranks. Infact, that's probably one of the biggest worries is those 'militia rednecks' now veterans providing advice and training to them.[/QUOTE]I don't know a single military veteran who doesn't own at least one firearm, and given how [I]seriously[/I] some people take this shit I think the anti-gun Facepunchers would shit themselves if they knew what kind of hardware some people have tucked away. I always chuckle when people go "YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THE TANKS AND THE PLANES????" because I'm well aware those certain special individuals exist. [editline]fuck it, I'll add it anyway[/editline] Or that collection of PDF files that was floating around in certain circles a couple years ago that detailed instructions for a home-built FIM-43 Redeye missile and launcher. I guess the person who hosted it was a European and got busted by the thought police, but that's just a rumor. I've always wondered if that will surface again though, I only heard about the controversy it caused after it was all said and done.
The best part about it is that in upstate NY, most of the dudes up here are old timers who have huge piles of these non-neutered AR's and who are just farmers but would be locked up due to SAFE. Hell, even the police don't take it seriously outside of the city.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48916057]The judicial debate over the second amendment comes down to whether the "well-regulated militia" clause is distinct from the "shall not be infringed" clause - in other words, is the right to bear arms intrinsic only to members of the militia, or is it truly universal?[/QUOTE] The supreme court has already decided through a few different cases that it's a universal right. So, no, that's not really up for debate anymore.
I hope the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48916057]The second amendment doesn't exist for rebels to resist the government. It's for citizens to resist invaders.[/QUOTE] One could argue that tanks, planes, bombs and nuclear weapons would be needed to threaten the government.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;48914467]"Assault weapon" doesn't mean fully automatic fire. Full-auto weapons are already practically impossible to acquire, and have been used in I think 1 murder in the last century in the US.[/QUOTE] I think you're forgetting a certain massacre on Valentine's day.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48916092]-holy shit-[/QUOTE] Okay. Where do I start... First off, McVeigh was never part of the Michigan Militia. He also attacked the Federal Government in retaliation to the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge Massacre. He had also been carrying luggage from the First Gulf War, in which he was a top scoring Bradley IFV gunner. One of his memoirs actually talks about how horrified he was of the Highway of Death, and also being horrified regarding being given orders to attack surrendering Iraqi servicemen. As for the militias standing off toe-to-toe with the American government? All the damn time. Bundy Ranch, Oregon Mines, and a few other things comes to mind. On the other hand though, most militia groups are now active around border states where they help out the US Border Patrol track down drug smugglers and help capture them. That and also protecting ranchers out of their own wallets in order to ensure that Cartel groups do not go about killing cattle or attacking farmland. Whether or not you agree with them is up to you, but most of the militia groups you have these days are what most people ask for. You guys wanted well regulated militia groups, you get them.
[QUOTE=New Cidem;48917525]I think you're forgetting a certain massacre on Valentine's day.[/QUOTE] Still a very tiny exception to the rule.
[QUOTE=Satansick;48916119]Also you'll never beat the American army, even with assault weapons.[/QUOTE] Fuck this assault weapons shit Take a look at these two guns [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/J3rFCxG.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YH7fyiH.png[/IMG] Second one looks way more deadly, right? Well, I'll let you in on a little secret: They're the same gun - A Ruger 10/22, which is a semiautomatic, magazine fed firearm. Yeah, the one on the bottom probably has a bigger magazine, but beyond appearance they're identical. Stop using the words "assault weapon." There's no such fucking thing. People are scared of automatic weapons but a school shooter isn't going to jump through the millions of hoops for a Title 2 license just so they can drop 6 figures on a fully automatic weapon. I'm not going to pretend I know the solution to stop our school shooting "problem" but banning guns people don't like isn't the solution.
gun regulation in the united states is always corporatist and unconstitutional the only effective gun control is amendment to the constitution [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Saber15;48916921]'Assault weapon' bans are [I]completely[/I] arbitrary in what they ban[/QUOTE] I used to think this until I realized competing gun manufacturers can influence bans to cut out rivals "your gun can only hold X amount of bullets" (our guns have X-1) "your gun can't be imported from X" (we import from Y) "your gun can't use X materials" (we make ours out of dicks) "your gun can't be modified in X ways"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48916092]bulllll shit. Some timothy mcveigh michigan militia rednecks wouldn't stand a chance. Also, you really think that anyone would take up arms against the government? The people that would start oppressing Americans in some new world order dictatorship shit (republicans) are the exact same people who would gladly say "support our troops" when there's marines marching down main street USA. They're the same kind of right wing nutjobs that oppose gay marriage, think Obama's a socialist, and support NSA spying. In fact, when was the last time any militia opposed the government? Timothy Mcveigh, of the michigan militia, bombed a federal building because he didn't like BILL CLINTON. Did the militias give a shit when Reagan was in power, doing all his super corrupt shit? When Bush 1 or 2 were in power breaking the law and invading foreign countries on false evidence? No, they supported them. Why? Because they don't like muslims. Also, since when is a mob rule with a bunch of right wing nutjobs with guns a good thing? However crappy our government is, giving all the most radical elements of the right wing in our country the power to take control over the government would be WAY worse.[/QUOTE] This is why I think more liberals need to be for less gun control, too many dumb people have guns while smart people try to play it safe. It's almost exactly like Idiocracy.
When it comes to its core people need to understand the fundamental postiton of a firearm. Is a firearm a tool of death? Yes it can be. Is that why people seek them or try and take them away? Yes/ Fundamentally firearms are all about power. It is something that can be used to flex your metaphorical muscle. It's all a trade of who has power and who does not. Now with that in mind the next question becomes how much responsibility for my own well being am I willing to give someone else (In this case the government). How much power are you willing to give up in order to have someone else assume that responsibility? None of it comes down to laws or rights at its core, its all about power. Like Stan Lee Said with great power comes great responsibility, and with that power many good things as well as many bad things can be accomplished. Now my notion on the subject doesn't appeal to the bill of rights or militia laws or what have you. My notion stems on the idea that I do not want to give up that power to another entity. Especially when that entity as a whole can be corrupted and missus the powers given. With myself I know what is best for me, and I know what I need to do to take care of myself. I do not wish to relinquish that power to someone that more than likely does not have my best interests in mind who thinks they know what is best for me. In an Ideal world none of this would be of issue, but the problem of the human condition is that for every person who is content with the power they have there are 10 more who want more. While my power may be little, and in the grand scheme of things may not amount to much, it is of my own. It is something that I can flex, something that I can use not only for myself but for others. At this point in time I believe firearms have become a necessary evil, just as nuclear weapons. For the same reason the US and Russia will not completely disarm we too should not disarm.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;48914684]The smoothbore musket was the assult rifle of it's day.[/QUOTE] No, that would be the Puckle gun [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun[/url]
gun control solution: install iphone style fingerprint sensors on the safety so only the purchaser can use it [sp]this was not a serious suggestion :I [/sp]
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48920254]gun control solution: install iphone style fingerprint sensors on the safety so only the purchaser can use it[/QUOTE] That doesn't solve anything, because those can be over ridden and it's irrelevant to the original purchaser who purchased the weapon. Guns are incredibly simple machines, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to modify or change one to function without such a safety.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;48920203]No, that would be the Puckle gun [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun[/url][/QUOTE] Puckle gun was a failed design that was barely used in any capacity and had a nonexistant impact on warfare.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48920847]Puckle gun was a failed design that was barely used in any capacity and had a nonexistant impact on warfare.[/QUOTE]Yeah but it was cool as fuck. Which is what most "assault rifles" on the market are all about anyway.
holy shit I wonder if I made replica puckle guns with modern tacticool super operator double stranger danger features... would they sell?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48920202]At this point in time I believe firearms have become a necessary evil, just as nuclear weapons. For the same reason the US and Russia will not completely disarm we too should not disarm.[/QUOTE] Iunno about that, nuclear weapons are an unnecessary evil, and are largely in the control of idiots and incompetents who don't know what they're doing and what they're handling.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48914764]The military's got tanks, helicopters, explosives, and apart from hardware, training civilians can't really match them either way[/QUOTE] Tell that to the Mujahideen and they'll laugh you out of their country just like they did to the Soviets and the Coalition. A civilian militia ready to lead a guerilla war with even pea shooters against an invading force (or a home brewed threat) is much better than nothing. You can't say other nations aren't afraid of the thought of invading the US even though most of us just have rifles.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48920254]gun control solution: install iphone style fingerprint sensors on the safety so only the purchaser can use it [sp]this was not a serious suggestion :I [/sp][/QUOTE] Smart guns already exist... your suggestion is a real thing
[QUOTE=mcgrath618;48914642]By your logic, the first amendment doesn't apply today because Britain was oppressing the people back then, and they're not now[/QUOTE] And? Yes, many, many fucking things have changed since the Constitution was written. Shit, the vast majority of those who signed it owned other human beings because they had a different skin color. I know I am challenging the pro-gun Facepunch hivemind but let's be real here; the Second Amendment was written for a country fresh in rebellion in a time where the average firearm needed to be in spitting distance to hit a one man target. We cannot be basing our laws off a 200+ year old document written in a time where people didn't have the decency to regularly bathe. It would be like Britain following the Magna Carta to the letter. I also find it funny when people on FP bash Christians for their zealous worship of an ancient book while dogmatically defending their right to own human-killing weapons based on one of America's oldest written documents. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=viper shtf;48914684]The smoothbore musket was the assult rifle of it's day.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. Complete bullshit. There was no "assault rifle of the day". Do you want to know why soldiers marched in massive formations even though it seems completely ludicrous? It's because smooth-bore muskets can't hit shit. Their range is limited and their accuracy is garbage, so you needed a large formation of men all aiming in the same place to consistently land any shots. There was absolutely no equivalent for the modern assault rifle back then. If anything, the aforementioned hatchet would be closer. With an assault rifle, one person can easily kill several people in rapid succession. With a musket, you'd be lucky to hit one without a group of people also firing with you.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48921238]And? Yes, many, many fucking things have changed since the Constitution was written. Shit, the vast majority of those who signed it owned other human beings because they had a different skin color. I know I am challenging the pro-gun Facepunch hivemind but let's be real here; the Second Amendment was written for a country fresh in rebellion in a time where the average firearm needed to be in spitting distance to hit a one man target. We cannot be basing our laws off a 200+ year old document written in a time where people didn't have the decency to regularly bathe. It would be like Britain following the Magna Carta to the letter. I also find it funny when people on FP bash Christians for their zealous worship of an ancient book while dogmatically defending their right to own human-killing weapons based on one of America's oldest written documents. [/QUOTE] Literally none of your points have anything to do with what you're arguing. How regularly someone bathes has nothing to do with how good or bad the laws they write.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;48921238]And? Yes, many, many fucking things have changed since the Constitution was written. Shit, the vast majority of those who signed it owned other human beings because they had a different skin color. I know I am challenging the pro-gun Facepunch hivemind but let's be real here; the Second Amendment was written for a country fresh in rebellion in a time where the average firearm needed to be in spitting distance to hit a one man target. We cannot be basing our laws off a 200+ year old document written in a time where people didn't have the decency to regularly bathe. It would be like Britain following the Magna Carta to the letter. I also find it funny when people on FP bash Christians for their zealous worship of an ancient book while dogmatically defending their right to own human-killing weapons based on one of America's oldest written documents. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] Bullshit. Complete bullshit. There was no "assault rifle of the day". Do you want to know why soldiers marched in massive formations even though it seems completely ludicrous? It's because smooth-bore muskets can't hit shit. Their range is limited and their accuracy is garbage, so you needed a large formation of men all aiming in the same place to consistently land any shots. There was absolutely no equivalent for the modern assault rifle back then. If anything, the aforementioned hatchet would be closer. With an assault rifle, one person can easily kill several people in rapid succession. With a musket, you'd be lucky to hit one without a group of people also firing with you.[/QUOTE] "Pro-gun hivemind" Or how to invalidate your entire argument in one statement
There's a lot of truth the the "guns are synonymous with autonomy" argument. I could make the argument that banning guns is an attack on women's rights, since guns are a hugely equalizing force for them vs male attackers. Besides, you can hate guns if you want, but like an above poster said, if the U.S. was ever invaded, the enemy would have some serious issues subduing the American populace.
They already have bans on full autos made past 1986 (only way to get one legally that is made after 1986 is to be a Class 7 SOT) Do we really need anything more? Personally they need to repeal the 1986 and NFA laws, complete infringement.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;48914467]"Assault weapon" doesn't mean fully automatic fire. Full-auto weapons are already practically impossible to acquire, and have been used in I think 1 murder in the last century in the US.[/QUOTE] 3 murders, actually. one was a stolen automatic weapon and the other two were by cops. automatic weapons are the best behaved weapons of the bunch [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=BananaFoam;48921238]And? Yes, many, many fucking things have changed since the Constitution was written. Shit, the vast majority of those who signed it owned other human beings because they had a different skin color. I know I am challenging the pro-gun Facepunch hivemind but let's be real here; the Second Amendment was written for a country fresh in rebellion in a time where the average firearm needed to be in spitting distance to hit a one man target. We cannot be basing our laws off a 200+ year old document written in a time where people didn't have the decency to regularly bathe. It would be like Britain following the Magna Carta to the letter. I also find it funny when people on FP bash Christians for their zealous worship of an ancient book while dogmatically defending their right to own human-killing weapons based on one of America's oldest written documents. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] Bullshit. Complete bullshit. There was no "assault rifle of the day". Do you want to know why soldiers marched in massive formations even though it seems completely ludicrous? It's because smooth-bore muskets can't hit shit. Their range is limited and their accuracy is garbage, so you needed a large formation of men all aiming in the same place to consistently land any shots. There was absolutely no equivalent for the modern assault rifle back then. If anything, the aforementioned hatchet would be closer. With an assault rifle, one person can easily kill several people in rapid succession. With a musket, you'd be lucky to hit one without a group of people also firing with you.[/QUOTE] one of the signees (can't remember which) predicted automatic weapons years before the second amendment was ever written. the founding fathers knew full well what the second amendment meant
[QUOTE=Cinnamonbun;48921378]They already have bans on full autos made past 1986 (only way to get one legally that is made after 1986 is to be a Class 7 SOT) Do we really need anything more? Personally they need to repeal the 1986 and NFA laws, complete infringement.[/QUOTE] Doesnt have to be aa type 7, a few other classes can get their SOT as well. Just have to be a 7 if you want to make them yourself.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;48920254]gun control solution: install iphone style fingerprint sensors on the safety so only the purchaser can use it [sp]this was not a serious suggestion :I [/sp][/QUOTE] doesn't work. [editline]17th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48920847]Puckle gun was a failed design that was barely used in any capacity and had a nonexistant impact on warfare.[/QUOTE] true, but the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle]Girandoni Air Rifle[/url] was a heavily fielded 20 shot repeating rifle used by the Holy Roman Empire. it was good out to 125 yards for around 30 shots before air pressure dropped to a point where effective range suffered. it was pretty accurate and could deal some heavy damage even to armored troops. At the time the Second Amendment was written, it was in limited service in the United States.
every time I read somebody going "you couldn't go against the government any way whats the point?????" I feel physically sorry for that individual like hello excuse me have you not noticed that we were at war in 2 countries with a fighting force of less (starting) capability than our civilian populace and they gave us hell thats not even mentioning that it's predicted that in the case of a revolution somewheres around 40%-60% of the armed forces would defect to the rebels also the fact that if there were ever a threat of a rebellion, as it stands literally fucking all armed government personnel would simultaneously shit themselves en masse because of the risk of 1 in 10 dudes being armed and ready I mean could you imagine being a cop or nat guard and hearing that the populace is revolting because the government is evil for X reason? I would quite literally get that uniform off as fast as if it were fire you take away the 2nd amendment you take away that power we hold, simple as that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.