Quantcast

‘Take Weapons of War Off Our Street’

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by SharpDog, Oct 25, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,124
    Location:
    Tennessee
  2. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    14,696
    Steak fry!? I thought they wanted to get rid of cows and force people to eat healthy...hmm, I bet they had armed security too.
     
  3. Insignificant bill

    Insignificant bill Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    229
    Well she isn't going to win the election.
     
    brunowbe, Infidel and Olon like this.
  4. Catshooter

    Catshooter Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    444
    Location:
    south east South Dakota
    Yes! I'm all in favor of taking weapons of war off of our streets. They need to be in our homes! Far to many Americans are unarmed and this is terrible.


    Cat
     
  5. Bill Raby

    Bill Raby Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Messages:
    219
    Weapons used in war:

    Brown Bess
    Colt Army
    1911
    Arquebus
    Arrows
    Rocks
    Dogs
    Boats
    Chlorine
    Smallpox
    Swords

    Weapon NOT used in war:

    AR-15
     
  6. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,199
    I'm all for the second amendment, but this is a complete and total cop-out that absolutely no one outside this small group is taking seriously.

    The only difference between and AR15 and M16 is the burst or full auto mode, and, in my experience, the Army doesn't want soldiers using it except in the most dire of circumstances. SO, if the Army is training soldiers to use their M16s in semi auto, aimed fire mode, then how is that different from an AR15? (hint: it's not.)

    I think it's a better argument, and more honest and genuine, to advocate for the second amendment in it's historical context. The AR15 most certainly is a weapon of war and that is precisely why they should be in private in hands.

    I understand your desire to reframe the narrative and thus the debate, but you need an argument with substance. Semantics is insufficient, and all you have here is semantics.
     
  7. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,199
    I seem to recall the same thing being said about our current president. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
     
  8. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    55,558
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    We need to take threats made by the major politicians seriously (yes, even Robert Francis) because they show us the spectrum of thought on the 2A. Even the impractical completely emotional threats from someone that can muster enough support to run a campaign for the nomination for POTUS shift the middle ground in that spectrum and their more "reasonable" sounding competitors have to be less reasonable.
     
  9. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,204
    Your backwards. The 2nd Amendment is specifically about arms, or as we'd say, 'weapons of war'. The entire purpose is to ensure that they body politic (the militia) is always armed for war, against foreign or domestic opponents.

    If your weapon of choice isn't useful for maintaining 'the security of a free state' then you have no Constitutional right to keep or bear it. Only weapons of war qualify.
     
    mustbe, bearcreek, SharpDog and 5 others like this.
  10. HPCadm17

    HPCadm17 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    277
    I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. When presented with this fact, the focus then shifts from abolishing AR-15's to abolishing the 2A altogether.

    When asked if they want a government run by Trump and/or Republicans to possess all the firepower, The anti's bring up the military/planes/tanks, etc.

    I say we should reconstitute the militia and collectively keep and bear large arms as well.

    The government monopoly on the threat of violence is the biggest threat to the security of a free state. Just because we haven't seen a complete collapse of the republic yet doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, and we have plenty of examples in modern history to prove that it can, and does, happen.
     
    v35, DustyGmt, SharpDog and 6 others like this.
  11. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,841
    Location:
    Virginia
    Unlike O'Rourke, Warren and Buttigieg have not made gun control a central plank in their campaigns. I even recall Warren talking about an exemption for gun collectors (from an AWB), in one of the early debates.

    But it's premature to be talking about the gun stances of specific candidates. The whole political landscape (in both parties) may look quite different by the early part of next year.
     
    40-82 likes this.
  12. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,397
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama

    I respectfully disagree; the 2nd amendment is about all arms, not just simply those used in war. It certainly applies to those used in war, but there is no restriction in the 2A concerning others. "Infringed" means "to intrude into/onto," or "to diminish."
    If you start to say non war weapons aren't included, you are, in effect, "diminishing" the right (ie., making it smaller).

    What if our country was invaded and attacked --- okay, not likely, but let's conjure an example where Joe Citizen MUST be the first responder. Let's say all he has is his Remington 700 .... or Winchester 70. Or, say, his father's Winchester 1894 .30-30. Obviously he might not be as effective as a neighbor showing up with his AR-15 and 5,000 rounds of ammo, but he still can contribute.
    Would YOU turn him away, when EVERY able-bodied person might be required?
    I think not ....
     
  13. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,199
    Over the long haul, that might be a better strategy for us. It's going to be a lot harder for the anti gun movement to get a majority of 3/4 of the various state legislatures to ratify a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment, than it will be for them to get 50%+1 of Congressmen and a sympathetic president to pass legislation banning AR15s.
     
    HPCadm17, Darkhorse and drband like this.
  14. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,204
    Yes, it is. We agree, and I guess I wasn't clear.

    I'm splitting the point rather fine here, to emphasize the point. If you have a sporting implement that's not useful for warfare, that's not an arm, and it's not relevant to the 2nd. Your O/U .410 is less-than-ideal, but if it's dangerous, it's an arm.

    The point is that arguing that something or other shouldn't be banned because it's not (used by DoD/mil surp/really dangerous/painted black) is utterly and irretrievably wrong. We don't have a right to possess arms because they aren't dangerous. . . we have a right to possess arms because they ARE dangerous.

    Looking ahead, I think this point will become increasingly important. When 'arms' are ray guns or targeted gravity disruption weapons, we will still need to be armed. If we talk ourselves into a stupid 'sporting purposes' corner, we will have lost.

    Not as well armed as I'd like, but better armed than most potential victims of totalitarianism have been.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
    Darkhorse likes this.
  15. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,801
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    -I'm still trying to think of an object that can't be used as a weapon in desperate battle - and thus, couldn't be banned as a "weapon of war"... .
     
  16. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    I agree. The bulk of the Continental militia and Army may have been armed with Brown Besses and Charleville muskets, but certainly not all. Pennsylvania and Kentucky rilfes, Jaeger rifles, fowling pieces of various types, Trade rifles, and probably the odd blundebuss and matchlock showed up for assembly.
    The South did the same thing in the Civil War. And individuals have done so in virtually every conflict we've been in to date., including GWOT. I had the pleasure of setting up an M1A Scout Squad for a young man who had authorization from his command to bring it back to the sandbox with him. (This was back when they started the DM push, and there weren't enough issue rifles pulled out of mothballs and set up yet.)
    Waldo, the weapon is your mind. Everything else is just potential tools to get the job done.
     
  17. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,801
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    That's it!!
    First they have to ban the brain - everything else will follow!!!
     
  18. natman

    natman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    3,714
    Yes and no. You are quite right about the "weapons of war" the Democrats want to ban being precisely the "arms" the Second Amendment protects. However, SCOTUS ruled in the Heller decision that:

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    So a firearm used for a traditionally lawful purpose is covered by the Second Amendment, whether it is a weapon of war or not.
     
  19. LaneP

    LaneP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2019
    Messages:
    570
    It's a game of incrementalism and they go after whatever they can generate the most hysteria and emotionalism from at any given time. In the 70's it was the "Saturday Night special" that was the bane of civilization and we all need to rally to save humanity from. For a time it was "cop killer bullets" and "dum dum rounds". Now we're onto "assault rifles".
     
    .308 Norma and theotherwaldo like this.
  20. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    22,908
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Let's not allow the antis to fool or trick us. ;)

    The term "weapons of war" essentially means ALL GUNS as every type of firearm has been used in "battlefield": Musket, revolver, bolt action, lever action, magazine fed semi-auto, etc. :rofl: So whenever antis mention banning "weapons of war", they ultimately mean banning all guns, regardless of what they "claim" for the moment. :D

    Think about it - End game for antis is to ban our liberty, starting with banning of all guns. Let's not forget that.


    As to our judicial reality, since the legislative and executive branches have failed to uphold the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights "for the people" over the decades, it's the judicial branch, particularly the US Supreme Court, that has started to ENFORCE the Second Amendment "for the people". As justice Gorsuch clearly stated in this interview, it is the JOB of the SCOTUS to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights, "All of them" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/


    With DC v Heller, the Supreme Court has already ruled "that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    And now we get to address the "Common Use" issue that includes auto loading firearms such as AR15, AK47, Mini14, etc. along with large capacity magazines originally and currently "commonly used".

    Here's Cornell Law School explanation of 2A "bearing arms" post DC v Heller (As with US Constitution being "updated" with amendments to reflect modern times, so should our "arms" be updated to reflect modern/improved technologies as expressed in Caetano v Massachusetts) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

    "The Second Amendment ... civilians ... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time... the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals ... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

    ... Subsequently, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court emphasized that, under Heller, the protections of the Second Amendment extend to firearms that were not in existence at the time of the Framers."

    And to me, this means, for self defense against multiple armed intruders, the protections of 2A extend to firearms in common use like AR15s (which is the most popular long gun currently) using 30+ capacity magazines to reduce/eliminate the "lethal pause" that judge Benitez pointed out.


    Here are two recent thread discussions why citizens need "modern" and "improved" technology arms:
    As to nonsensical magazine capacity limit, with "common use" argument and CA failing to provide sufficient justification for "arbitrarily" picking a limiting number of 10 rounds (It could have been 7, 5, 3 or even 1, take your random pick. :eek:) prompted judge Benitez to write, "So, how did California arrive at the notion that any firearm magazine size greater than a 10-round magazine is unacceptable?

    It appears to be an arbitrary judgment ... The State does not ... say why California (or any jurisdiction, for that matter) place the limit at 10 ... The significance of 10 rounds, however, is not addressed

    ... Federal law has no limit on permissible magazine size. In U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for firearm offenses ... a 'large capacity magazine' is defined for purposes of sentencing as a magazine 'that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.'

    A reasoned explanation or a considered judgment would tend to demonstrate why the 'fit' of a total ban on magazines larger than 10- rounds is reasonable or how the ban is narrowly tailored ... Surly, Turner deference does not mean a federal court is relegated to rubber-stamping a broad-based arbitrary incursion on a constitutional right founded on speculative line-drawing and without any sign of tailoring for fit
    ."


    And judge Benitez calling magazines "arms" throws a big wrench in the states' push to limit magazine capacity for law abiding citizens when he wrote:

    "... from the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack.

    In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter, also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine. The need to re-load and the lengthy pause that comes with banning all but small-capacity magazines is especially unforgiving for victims who are DISABLED, or who have ARTHRITIS, or who are trying to HOLD A PHONE IN THEIR OFF-HAND while attempting to call for police help.

    The good that a re-loading pause might do in the extremely rare mass shooting incident is vastly outweighed by the harm visited on manifold law-abiding, citizen-victims who must also pause while under attack. This blanket ban without any tailoring to these types of needs goes to show ... lack of reasonable fit.
    "


    And I am dying to hear how CA state will respond when question is asked why the state government is not working to protect disabled, elderly citizens protect themselves from being victimized.

    Government provides wheelchair ramps and large print publications etc. to help the disabled and elderly citizens. Limiting magazine capacity is not helping the disabled or elderly. Government should be helping the disabled and elderly citizens better protect themselves from victimization by providing even greater capacity magazines and higher rate of fire devices like binary triggers along with noise suppression devices.

    "The district court in [Fyock v. Sunnyvale], found that 'magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds are in common use, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.' ... The district court found that the large capacity magazines qualify as 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment." and ruled with judgement concluding, "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are 'arms.'"

    So, since the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written by the founders to ENSURE the RIGHTS of the MINORITY, yes "we, the gun owners" are the minority in need of protection by the government; it's high time all branches of the government work to protect the physically disabled/weak, smaller stature, elderly citizens, female, etc. defend themselves instead of banning guns.

    And IMO, all this talk of gun ban is actually bringing gun owners from all walks of life together to vote against the antis in 2020 to ensure the judicial future of our gun rights/2A for decades and generations. :thumbup:
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
  21. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    SouthEastern FL
    LaneP writes:

    Don't forget about the snub-nosed revolver scourge on society of the early eighties.. ;)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...f5c8265/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b2cc1b04c8a8
     
    Shanghai McCoy and .308 Norma like this.
  22. FlSwampRat

    FlSwampRat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,517
    Location:
    Broward County, Fl
    Reminds me of that quote from the movie Basic.
    "What is your weapon... your weapon, man, your weapon? What keeps you alive and makes the other guy die? What- is- your- weapon? It's your brain Mr Pike, your noggin your noodle, your smarts, your gray matter, your poise under fire, your wits, when all about you are losing theirs. I think you came to this party unarmed Mr Pike."

    That said, it's good to have the tools for the mind to use
     
    entropy likes this.
  23. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,464
    "Weapons of war" came out when "assault rifles" got attacked into oblivion. I don't care what idiot politicians call them, I am keeping them.
     
  24. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,801
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    I disagree.

    The end game for the anti-gunners and their allies is ban all choices from those that are not their allies.
    If they have their way, you will have no say about your defense, your transportation, your occupation, your possessions, or anything else that affects your life or lifestyle.

    Removing your right to defend yourself and what you believe in is the opening play, not the end game.
     
    DoubleMag and Demi-human like this.
  25. DDDWho

    DDDWho Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    434
    The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt

    action rifles, pistols or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT.

    The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the

    same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant

    permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in

    the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

    shall not be infringed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice