• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The 2nd Amendment's rogue

gwynn said:
I am fully aware of the inaccuracy of sprayed fire. This is why I would question why one needs a waepon capable of it. While aimed semi-automatic weapons fire is far more lethal to the intended target, it is also much less likely to result in unintended injuries or fatalities. Given the main uses a law abiding citizen has for firearms are hunting and self-defense, I would think accuracy would be something you would desire.



If someone wishes to assist the military, I suggest they enlist or join a law enforcement agency. Either one would be far more benificial. Times have obviously changed since the 2nd amendment was created. The likelihood of resisting the US military using firearms alone is nearly non-existent.

There are a number of weapons I would put in that category. Mainly those in the realm of say the M240 or M60 and above in terms of calibre and rate of fire.

we aren't talking about crew served machine guns-we are talking about banning semi auto rifles that look like machine guns. There is no rational reason to ban those weapons. I also note that CIVILIAN law enforcement officers who can only shoot in self defense are issued fully automatic weapons for use in an urban environment. If local governments have determined that a fully automatic carbine or submachine gun has use in such situations than it is equally useful to other civilians.

You never dealt with the argument that for you all to fashion a credible argument in favor of gun control you must prove a conclusive link between gun restrictions and public safety and you cannot.

you also are very ignorant about the military and the limitations it would be under if it were directed by a dictator against the american civilians. They couldn't ICBM or carpet bomb say NYC to get a bunch of patriots and most wouldn't fire on americans anyway. If it came to that I wouldn't be shooting at a tank with my FAL, I would be lining up one of the dictators through the lens of my Generation IV nightscope on a 308 bolt action "long distance target interdiction rifle"
 
Last edited:
One of the greatest myths proffered by the ARC is taht times have changed and thus the Second or Ninth Amendment doesn't apply to modern times. This is moronic. the concept of a fully automatic or rapid firing weapon was far easier to contemplate in 1789 or so than the concept of the internet, wireless communication, television or even high speed electric presses yet those are all protected by the second amendment. regular national militaries ahd weapons the average civilian didn't have-massive Navy ships with dozens of heavy cannon for example. Nonetheless, the founders intended that the average male citizen possess the same basic infantry arms of the soldier
 
If someone wishes to assist the military, I suggest they enlist or join a law enforcement agency.
You can suggest this all you want, but that doesnt really answer my question.

Nor does it create an effective argument against the idea that I do, indeed, have the right to own these weapons.

Times have obviously changed since the 2nd amendment was created.
Time have changed.
But the principle remains timeless: for The People to retain actual power over their government, they must maintain a credible threat of force against it.

The likelihood of resisting the US military using firearms alone is nearly non-existent.
Like in...oh...Iraq?

There are a number of weapons I would put in that category. Mainly those in the realm of say the M240 or M60 and above in terms of calibre and rate of fire.
Given the intent of the 2nd Amendment-
Why?
 
TurtleDude said:
we aren't talking about crew served machine guns
I am. We have every bit as much a right to own an M-60 as we do any other firearm.

Militia historically formed into company sized units of infantry or light infantry. To move that into today's terms, you look at the TO&E of an airborn or range company; any weapon similar to what you'd find there is prortected by the 2nd.

There is no rational reason to ban those weapons.
Absolutely correct.

If local governments have determined that a fully automatic carbine or submachine gun has use in such situations than it is equally useful to other civilians.
Thats right - if the cops need them to protect themselves from criminals, then why dont I?

If it came to that I wouldn't be shooting at a tank with my FAL, I would be lining up one of the dictators through the lens of my Generation IV nightscope on a 308 bolt action "long distance target interdiction rifle"
Just in time to the see his head turn into a fine red mist by the impact of a 140gr Berger VLD from my 6.5-06. =)
 
the only point where I differ with you is that I read arms to mean individual weapons carried by the average infantryman while a tank or cannon would have been called ordnance or artillery back thensomething supplied by the state not the average militiaman. However, I can't find anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to ban your owning an MI abrams or a F14 fighter.

my choice 168 graint BTHP sierra match king on a Federal Match cartridge (same that the HRT of the FBI uses) out of a Krieger barrelled Reminton 700 PSS with a leopold Mark IV or osprey Gen IV NVD
 
TurtleDude said:
the only point where I differ with you is that I read arms to mean individual weapons carried by the average infantryman
So the M249 counts but the M60 does not? You have to look at it in the slightly broader context of the militia unit rather than the individual - would a militia unit be effective at assisting or resting the standing army if all it had were M-16s?

my choice 168 graint BTHP sierra match king on a Federal Match cartridge (same that the HRT of the FBI uses) out of a Krieger barrelled Reminton 700 PSS with a leopold Mark IV or osprey Gen IV NVD

OK... WAY of topic...

SMKs are good bullets, but you're artifically limiting yourself by going with them, especially w/ the 168. The 175s are superior, and if you feel like pushing the limits of a safe load, the 190s are better yet. You can safely load a 175 to at least 2700fps.

The thing is the velocity - you have to push the big bullets fast enough to make them worthwhile. In a service rifle (like an M14) you cant push the heavy bullets as fast as you need to because the gas system wont work correctly, but in a bolt gun you dont have that problem. IMHO, for anything remotely long-range, you should only shoot .308 when you have to because compared to what you --could-- shoot, its a less-than-second best choice.

The very best bullet weight/velocity/ballistic combination is a heavy (140gr, 155gr) 6.5mm bullet driven over 3000fps, which puts you in the 6.5-284/6.5-06/6.5WSM class. The bullets are very long and reguire a very fast twist, but they weigh less than the standard bullets fired from these cases and so getting that velocity usually isnt a problem - especially with a long barrel. Their length gives them an excellent ballistic coefficient, and they can be driven fast enough to make use of it.

And remember - bullet drop is known quantity; its wind drift that gets you. At 1000yds, a 1mph net wind change will move the point of impact of that 168SMK at leat 7 inches. No one -I- know can judge a 1mph net shift over that distance.

I have a Rem M700ADL in 6.5-06 w/ a 28" Kreiger stainless bull barrel floated in a McMillan Prone stock topped witha a Bushnell 4200 6-24x. Two years ago I put 19 out of 20 shots into a 10" circle at 1000yds, from position, firing 140VLDs at 3050fps.
 
Last edited:
I won't argue with you, you know the stuff and while I got DE many years ago it was with a feinwerkbau 300 Air rifle, I qualified Expert with an HBAR colt twenty years ago and sort of got out of rifle shooting save air rifle. I was mostly a skeet shooter (AA/Master american and international) and a A level IPSC shooter (back when that was Master-circa 1984). Now I just shoot sporting clays, airguns and pistols along with my main sport=olympic style archery
 
gwynn said:
I am fully aware of the inaccuracy of sprayed fire. This is why I would question why one needs a waepon capable of it. While aimed semi-automatic weapons fire is far more lethal to the intended target, it is also much less likely to result in unintended injuries or fatalities. Given the main uses a law abiding citizen has for firearms are hunting and self-defense, I would think accuracy would be something you would desire.
I've often made this point to people, one of comparing the "dreaded" assault rifle vs. your everyday 30-o6 bolt action hunting rifle with scope. The point is this: If I were about to walk out of a building and someone told me there was someone 100 yards away who was going to attempt to shoot at me, and I was hypothetically given the option of choosing which weapon they would use - I would chose the assault rifle. When I've made this claim to people unfamiliar with firearms, and who've bought into the whole assault weapons are bad rhetoric, they look at me like I'm crazy. Once I explain my rationale a lightbulb seems to come on. My explanation is that a reliable hunting rifle with a quality scope is a much more deadly weapon because of it's accuracy than your straight out of the box assault rifle.

As for a weapon at close range, say 30 yards and closer, a shotgun with buckshot is also a much nastier weapon than an assault rifle. Inside of a house or building, when attempting to locate a bad guy the better weapon is a handgun, rather than a longer barrelled shoulder fired weapon.

Tactically speaking, there aren't too many scenarios where the assault rifle is a better choice. There are some, but not a lot.

I've often found it ironic how many on the gun control side don't seem to mind so much the hunting rifles and shotguns, but the mention of an assault rifle sends them into orbit. They proceed to demonstrate their lack of understanding of any of these weapon systems, or their functionality and practicality.

Just some food for thought...
 
Last edited:
Red State Sage, I would be with you in that case. However, if I were any one of the numerous other people in the vicinity, I would much prefer they have a hunting rifle and a clear shot at the entranceway. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but this is the argument used for restricting use of assault rifles. The easier it is to get them legally the more chances are for them to be acquired illegally. Many victims of violent crime are targeted due to association, especially in the inner city. Many of those who argue against ownership of assault rifles are not thinking they will be the targets themselves, but that they will be the innocent bystanders.

M14 Shooter said:
Like in...oh...Iraq?

Most of the damage done in Iraq has been through use of explosives or mortars, which are currently illegal for most people. Not to mention, the insurgents have not been able to dislodge the government, that is have not been successful.

Short on time, so I’ll get to the rest of it later.
 
TurtleDude said:
I won't argue with you, you know the stuff and while I got DE many years ago it was with a feinwerkbau 300 Air rifle, I qualified Expert with an HBAR colt twenty years ago and sort of got out of rifle shooting save air rifle. I was mostly a skeet shooter (AA/Master american and international) and a A level IPSC shooter (back when that was Master-circa 1984). Now I just shoot sporting clays, airguns and pistols along with my main sport=olympic style archery

I do a lot of skeet shooting, too. Its a lot of fun, especiually when you have a lot of people and three throwers.

I shoot 4-5 times a year at Camp Perry, including the nationals. I shoot service rifle, usually, with an AR, but I shoot long range with the M14 and the M700.
 
M14 Shooter said:
I do a lot of skeet shooting, too. Its a lot of fun, especiually when you have a lot of people and three throwers.

I shoot 4-5 times a year at Camp Perry, including the nationals. I shoot service rifle, usually, with an AR, but I shoot long range with the M14 and the M700.


You might know a couple guys near Toledo-the Cleland Brothers. I know Matt best-he runs a junior archery club that competes against some of my kids-he was national compound champion in 98. His brother Chad is a legend in blackpowder rifle shooting. Chad used to work for TC arms with a good-sadly dead from ovarian cancer-friend of mine. They own a gun/archery shop near Toledo. Never been up to camp perry-I used to shoot at Prado Tiro-the 84 Olympics venue when the US trials and International Shooting championships were there and then at Wolf's Creek (Atlanta) site of the 96 games
 
TurtleDude said:
You might know a couple guys near Toledo-the Cleland Brothers. I know Matt best-he runs a junior archery club that competes against some of my kids-he was national compound champion in 98. His brother Chad is a legend in blackpowder rifle shooting. Chad used to work for TC arms with a good-sadly dead from ovarian cancer-friend of mine. They own a gun/archery shop near Toledo. Never been up to camp perry-I used to shoot at Prado Tiro-the 84 Olympics venue when the US trials and International Shooting championships were there and then at Wolf's Creek (Atlanta) site of the 96 games

I do know the Cleland's; I took my CCW course though their store, and have bought 2 guns from them. They have a nice place, though they are expensive.
 
gwynn said:
That said I firmly believe in the right to own some types of guns and firmly believe there are some nobody outside the military should have access to.
This is the very same thing gun haters such as Sarah Brady chants. Gun haters claim they can limit the 2nd amend because of the Miller case. The gun haters use the Miller case and yet the gun haters banned 19 types of firearms that the Miller case would have protected. This is just more proof the gun haters want to ban the right to bear arms.
The one thing the gun haters cannot prove is that a person must be in a militia to bear arms. There is no rule or law that states this.

One thing some people that claim to be pro gun and chant the militia lie do not understand is militias can be regulated. The 2nd amend states this very simple fact. This means a militia unit can be regulated to whatever status the people in charge of that militia wants to regulate them to. This means militia could be regulated to just a few if not one type of firearm. Which means that a militia could be regulated to an unarmed duty.

The one thing the 2nd amend does state is a well regulated militia, not a well regulated people.

People that chant the this gun is better then that gun bs are just as bad. I can think of no military that would accept an inaccurate firearm into their inventory. Military requirements for marksmanship are not as tight as civilians. Nowhere will you hear a military range instructor telling you to place all of your rounds in the same hole. The military simply requires soldiers to hit a target at set ranges. Civilian marksman simply prefer to place their rounds in tight groups.

As for the spray shooting chant. When has this ever happened?
The LA bank robbery? I watched the news footage of this. It appears the robbers are aiming their shoots. I seen no crazed spraying of shots.
Columbine? Everything I read about this shooting the shooters walked up and fired point blank at their victims.
The subway shooting? Again this shooter walked up and shot point blank at his victims.
Any of the other school shootings? If I recall the shooters in these incidents took their time and aimed.
Spray fire is just another gun hater catch phrase
 
DHard3006 said:
This is the very same thing gun haters such as Sarah Brady chants. Gun haters claim they can limit the 2nd amend because of the Miller case. The gun haters use the Miller case and yet the gun haters banned 19 types of firearms that the Miller case would have protected. This is just more proof the gun haters want to ban the right to bear arms.
The one thing the gun haters cannot prove is that a person must be in a militia to bear arms. There is no rule or law that states this.

One thing some people that claim to be pro gun and chant the militia lie do not understand is militias can be regulated. The 2nd amend states this very simple fact. This means a militia unit can be regulated to whatever status the people in charge of that militia wants to regulate them to. This means militia could be regulated to just a few if not one type of firearm. Which means that a militia could be regulated to an unarmed duty.

The one thing the 2nd amend does state is a well regulated militia, not a well regulated people.

People that chant the this gun is better then that gun bs are just as bad. I can think of no military that would accept an inaccurate firearm into their inventory. Military requirements for marksmanship are not as tight as civilians. Nowhere will you hear a military range instructor telling you to place all of your rounds in the same hole. The military simply requires soldiers to hit a target at set ranges. Civilian marksman simply prefer to place their rounds in tight groups.

As for the spray shooting chant. When has this ever happened?
The LA bank robbery? I watched the news footage of this. It appears the robbers are aiming their shoots. I seen no crazed spraying of shots.
Columbine? Everything I read about this shooting the shooters walked up and fired point blank at their victims.
The subway shooting? Again this shooter walked up and shot point blank at his victims.
Any of the other school shootings? If I recall the shooters in these incidents took their time and aimed.
Spray fire is just another gun hater catch phrase

you are mostly right but you make a couple of errors. 1) the Second amendment's term well regulated militia empowers no federal or state government to regulate the militia. A well regulated (as opposed to an unorganized militia) was one that regularly trained and drilled. IT HAS NOTHING to do with regulating weapons. The bill of rights is a limitation on federal authority not something that empowers any branch of the federal government and it merely assumes that powers not delegated to the federal government remains with the several states and the people

if the second amendment merely applies to those in the militia then the 9th Amendment recognizes the rights of non militia members to keep and bear arms
 
Turtledude said:
if the second amendment merely applies to those in the militia then the 9th Amendment recognizes the rights of non militia members to keep and bear arms
Pretty clever, but the ninth amendment can be use to defend any right.

The ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ninth amendment just means that the rights of the people are not limited to what is listed in the Constitution.

The second can defend itself:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The People's right shall not be infringed.

The word "militia" is sometimes used the try twist the meaning of the amendment, but the second part clearly states: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The "militia" was the people in Colonial times anyway.
 
TurtleDude said:
the Second amendment's term well regulated militia empowers no federal or state government to regulate the militia.
The 2nd amend states well regulated militia, not well regulated people.
TurtleDude said:
A well regulated (as opposed to an unorganized militia) was one that regularly trained and drilled. IT
Where does it mention trained? Nowhere! It simply states well regulated militia. See so called pro gun people using the militia lie. You all talked yourselves into a corner! LMFAO!
TurtleDude said:
if the second amendment merely applies to those in the militia
The 2nd amend states militia can be regulated. No where does the 2nd amend state a person is required to be in a militia to bear arms.
 
Where does it mention trained? Nowhere! It simply states well regulated militia. See so called pro gun people using the militia lie. You all talked yourselves into a corner! LMFAO!
Read the rest of the amendment buddy.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Pretty clever, but the ninth amendment can be use to defend any right.

The ninth amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ninth amendment just means that the rights of the people are not limited to what is listed in the Constitution.

The second can defend itself:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The People's right shall not be infringed.

The word "militia" is sometimes used the try twist the meaning of the amendment, but the second part clearly states: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The "militia" was the people in Colonial times anyway.


the Ninth Amendment is particularly vexing to the ARC trolls who claim the second amendment doesn't protect non militia or National Guard types and is an easy way to slap around the statist schmucks who pass for judges. It also is tough for the "abortion is a sacred right" types to claim that the 9th amendment doesn't apply to a right that every founder assumed existed
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Read the rest of the amendment buddy.

"Well regulated" modifies "Militia", not "the people".

What about training?
 
Gun Control Logic:

People are breaking laws. Therefore we need more laws.


DUH
 
Vandeervecken said:
Gun Control Logic:

People are breaking laws. Therefore we need more laws.


DUH


as well as the fact that people who obey gun laws don't disobey laws against robbery and murder

people who murder and rob don't obey gun laws

Do you think that preventing crime is the motivation behind additional gun laws?
 
TurtleDude said:
as well as the fact that people who obey gun laws don't disobey laws against robbery and murder

people who murder and rob don't obey gun laws

Do you think that preventing crime is the motivation behind additional gun laws?

I think it is the main motivation behind the vast majority of anti-gun sheep. I do not for a moment think it is even a tertiary concern of the people in positions of power who guide those sheep.
 
Vandeervecken said:
I think it is the main motivation behind the vast majority of anti-gun sheep. I do not for a moment think it is even a tertiary concern of the people in positions of power who guide those sheep.


Astute Thinking, I agree 100% with you on that:agree
 
DHard3006 said:
The 2nd amend states well regulated militia, not well regulated people.

Where does it mention trained? Nowhere! It simply states well regulated militia. See so called pro gun people using the militia lie. You all talked yourselves into a corner! LMFAO!

The 2nd amend states militia can be regulated. No where does the 2nd amend state a person is required to be in a militia to bear arms.


Well Regulated
Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation. 4) To put in good order.
The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;​
Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.
This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Militia definition according to U.S. Law:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.




 
Back
Top Bottom