Anti gunners force John Kerry to cosponsor extreme gun ban

[funkyflathead]

He originally cosponsored the less extreme S 1O34 but now has consposored the radical S 1431!

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,567766,00.html

[MrBenchley]

1. Too too funny....

What drastic and dishonest tactic do you suppose they did to force a guy who's won a Silver Star, three Purple Hearts, and the Bronze Star with Combat V awards to co-sponsor a bill in Congress?

Did they appeal to common sense?

Could they have pointed out the scummy nature fo the politicians and organizations opposing the ban?

Perhaps they just applauded while he did it on his own....like most Americans want.

[funkyflathead]

5. They must jumped all over him

He endorsed S 1034 awhile ago. Bet they didn't like that.

[MrBenchley]

11. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre....

Of course you have proof of this....

[DoNotRefill]

2. Well, that guarantees....

that he has NO chance of winning the election....god, I hope he's not the nominee....

[Paladin]

17. Does He Pass Your Himmler Test?

n/t

[el_gato]

3. meanwhile the fascist police state is creeping up on us

[1a2b3c]

18. No shit

Good thing some of us prepared.

[ima_sinnic]

4. "radical"? S 1431 bans assault weapons

much as I don't like Kerry and much as I agree that these fascist times call for gun ownership, I can't see anything wrong with this. Please give me a clue how this is "radical."

[funkyflathead]

6. These times call for gun ownership.

Yeah buddy especially cause all the Repukes are armed.

Uh I'll take a 30 round AR-15 any day of the week.

What do you want- a Kentucky rifle??

[slackmaster]

15. Can you define "assault weapon" for us please?

In your own words.

I believe that a large majority of people who support the AWB don't have a good understanding of what it does and does not cover.

[iverglas]

7. "Anti gunners force John Kerry ..."

What did they do, put a gun to his head?


Forgive me, but no one seemed to have asked that oh-so-obvious question yet, and it was just forcing me to ask it ...

.

[funkyflathead]

8. Mr Benchley already asked n/t

[iverglas]

9. nooooo

Read it again, if needs be. I read it. I was amazed, but MrB *didn't* ask the obvious. It therefore fell to me to do it. A dirty job, but somebody had to do it.

.

[iverglas]

10. btw

The title of the article you linked to was:

Kerry Backs Tough Assault Weapons Ban

You might contemplate the virtues of leaving well enough alone, when the results of tampering are as silly as what you came up with.

.

[MrBenchley]

12. I was tempted to...

LOL!

[happyslug]

16. Here is the Law as it is today.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

[happyslug]

13. Here S-1431

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s1431is.txt.pdf

[happyslug]

14. Here is S-1034

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s1034is.txt.pdf

[solinvictus]

19. Kerry

Kerry must have the Keystone Kops or the Three Stooges for campaign managers because he keeps alienating potential voters with each and every step. Oh well, all the better for Dean.

[Withergyld]

20. Both proposed laws and the current law is Unconstitutional

In US v Miller SCOTUS ruled that only weapons with a military use are protected by the 2nd Amendment. see: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt

The USC Title 10 section 311 defines the militia as follows:
"Sec. 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"

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=311+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

Since I am a member of the militia as defined in Federal law as above, the proposed legislation and current law infringes my right to keep and bear (military type) arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

[slackmaster]

21. Taken to its conclusion the NFA is unconstitutional as well

It would be nice, but I'm afraid that qualifies as wishful thinking.

[MrBenchley]

22. Hahahahahahaha...

Not even close to true.

But jinkies, you'd think if it was, somebody like the GOA or the NRA would be suing. Wonder why they don't...other than that they know the diufference between what the law and the Cconstitution really say and the kind of imbecility they funnel to their followers.

[Withergyld]

23. Mr B you claim I am wrong but offer no proof???

Show where the the definition contained in Federal law is invalid, or show where the 2nd Amnedment does not apply to military type arms??

edited to add this from US V Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches
in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense."

The weapons banned ARE military equipment and are protected. thier use would contribute to the common defense.

[MrBenchley]

24. Need proof?

Tell us what happened in the Navegar suit to overturn the ban...(They lost, and the Supreme Court didn't bother to hear the appeal).

What happened in the Olympic Arms suit to overturn the ban? They lost again.

Worth noting that both of these suits were brought under the grounds that the ban violated the Commerce and Equal Protection clauses. Neither plaintiff even pretended the second amendment forbade the ban, and the second amendment wasn't brought up by either plaintiff.

Tell us, with, why didn't the NRA sue to overturn the ban on second amendment grounds? Why didn't the GOA sue? Answer: They knew the AWB was nno more unconstitutional than it was mint-flavored.

[Withergyld]

25. red herring

keep trying

[MrBenchley]

27. Nope...

Not interested in trying to "prove" something woh refuses to accept proof.

The gun companies sued and lost...and the AWB is constitutional.

[Withergyld]

35. In post 24

you state that it has NOT been challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds. The courts have not ruled on this issue. Lack of some party filing a lawsuit does not mean a lawsuit has no merit. With the sunset date coming up, why waste the time/effort/money when it will go of natural causes in less then a year.
You still are avoiding addressing the FEDERAL definition of the Militia and the logic of US V Miller.

[MrBenchley]

36. Too frigging funny for words...

Tell us, with, why do you suppose that two gun companies did not try to sue on Second Amendment grounds?

Do you suppose it was a typo in the lawsuit filing?

Do you suppose they and their lawyers all forgot there WAS a Second Amendment?

Do you suppose that the same powerful and sinister groups that FORCED John Kerry to call for a strengthened assault weapons ban forced the gun companies to file under the wrong grounds?

"Lack of some party filing a lawsuit does not mean a lawsuit has no merit"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrre.....

[slackmaster]

38. Corporations are not natural persons therefore lack standing

To sue on Second Amendment grounds.

"The People" is a legal term of art for the body politic. It refers only to human beings.

[MrBenchley]

41. Who the hell are you trying to kid, slack?

""The People" is a legal term of art for the body politic."
And thus collective in nature...

[slackmaster]

43. Red Herring

Corporations can't sue on Second Amendment grounds because they LACK STANDING.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[MrBenchley]

45. Too frigging funny for words, slack....

You mean they had no standing to sue on first amendment grounds either?

National Rifle Association, et al., Appellants v. Federal Election Commission, et al. (No. 02-1675)
Reply Brief on merits of NRA (August 21, 2003)
* Response to Motion of Plaintiffs in McConnell v. FEC, No. 02-1674, et al., for Divided Argument (July 18, 2003)
* Motion for Divided Argument (July 14, 2003)
* Brief for Appellants (July 8, 2003)
* Briefing Proposal (June 10, 2003)
* Supreme Court Order (June 5, 2003)
* Letter to Counsel (June 5, 2003)

http://www.law.stanford.edu/library/campaignfinance/

That's would break Wayne LaPierre's flinty little heart (and be a tremendous stain on the reputation of a high-priced law firm). Good thing it's just more of your silly hooey.

[slackmaster]

58. You're the one who's statements are funny, Benchley

Corporations have no hands.

Explain how a corporation can keep or bear arms.

BTW - Switching from the Second Amendment to the First is another Red Herring. The First Amendment's free speech protection is much broader than just speech by people. It was specifically designed to protect freedom of the press.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[MrBenchley]

60. Not even close to true....

"Corporations have no hands."
They ain't got a larynx or a tongue, either. Now give us another BIG laugh..

Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

[slackmaster]

62. Corporate speech is protected by the First Amendment

Speech includes writings, both published and non-published. Corporations are perfectly capable of producing written speech.

But the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms is limited to people. The concept of corporate speech makes sense. The concept of a corporation keeping or bearing arms does not. And neither does your argument.

[MrBenchley]

66. Dream on, slack....

Too frigging funny for words...

[slackmaster]

26. There's no need to sue to overturn the AWB

It will go away all by itself next September.

:D

[MrBenchley]

28. Just like David Duke and Larry Pratt want...

Nice playmates, slack.

[slackmaster]

30. No, like a Democratically controlled Congress passed in 1994

And a Democratic President signed into law.

Using BenchleyLogic (TM) I guess that makes Bill Clinton a racist asshole.

[MrBenchley]

33. Well, slack

You've certainly passed anything that could ever be called "logic"...

I hope you're not trying to pretend that Clinton wants the ban lifted....buit then we've seen no idiocy or dishonesty is beyond the RKBA ccrowd.

[slackmaster]

34. The ban is not going to be "lifted"

It's going to expire automatically, just like Congress passed and Bill Clinton approved.

[MrBenchley]

37. You and Ted Nugent keep telling yourself that...

[slackmaster]

39. What does Ted Nugent have to do with anything?

And how would his opinion relate to the fact that the AWB is going to expire?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

40. You and Larry Pratt and Tom DeLay

will have to figure that out for yourselves.

"Despite the deadly threat to police officers and civilians alike from assault rifles, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) wants to let the ban lapse and permit these killing machines to flood our streets. DeLay says he won't let the extension come up for a vote. And President Bush, who claims to favor the ban, isn't pushing Congress for an extension.

The National Rifle Association wants the assault ban lifted. In its paranoid view, the banning of Uzis one day means your Colt will be confiscated tomorrow. The NRA leadership insists the right to own a gun accorded Americans in the Second Amendment extends to any and all guns, even those that fire off 30 rounds in less than two seconds and murder innocent children.

That purported right is more important to the NRA than protecting police officers, disarming street gangs or safeguarding children. The gun lobby doesn't believe it has any moral or civic obligation to the community outside its membership and feels no responsibility for the victims of assault rifles.

But our senators and representatives have an obligation to the larger community. That community -- and that means all of us -- has to tell Congress and DeLay that assault weapons do not belong on our streets."

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0503/21guns.html

[slackmaster]

42. Ridiculous propaganda piece written by an ignoramus

By the end of the second sentence it's plain as day the author doesn't know JACK SHIT about the subject:

Adolf Hitler was so delighted with the lethal capability of the new gun presented to him by his ordnance designers during World War II that he dubbed it the "Sterm Kever" -- or assault rifle.

Today, assault rifles still kill efficiently and quickly, as demonstrated by the Beltway snipers. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo allegedly wielded a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15, an assault rifle adapted to evade the 1994 ban on assault weapons.

He's referring of course to the Sturmgewehr 44, a selective-fire weapon. No doubt this fool would tell us the Bushmaster's semiautomatic-only fire is just a clever exploitation of a loophole in the National Firearms Act.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

46. Gee, count on the RKBA crowd to be up on their Nazi trivia

Between you and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, guess which one has the credibility? Here's a hint...it's initials are AJC.

[slackmaster]

55. Sterm Kever?

It's really not THAT hard to check the spelling of foreign language words or to comprehend the difference between a semiautomatic and an automatic firearm. One would expect that an allegedly major newspaper would take a moment or two to check the facts before they publish something that makes them look stupid.

LOL!

[demsrule4life]

44. More lies

The National Rifle Association wants the assault ban lifted. In its paranoid view, the banning of Uzis one day means your Colt will be confiscated tomorrow. The NRA leadership insists the right to own a gun accorded Americans in the Second Amendment extends to any and all guns, even those that fire off 30 rounds in less than two seconds and murder innocent children.

I don't know anybody myself included that can pull a trigger 30 times in two seconds.

Why don't you go over to www.odmp.org and find out just what kills cops. You will see very few assault rifles. Cops are in much more danger with the guns they carry on duty then any assault rifle.

[MrBenchley]

47. Dems, all you do is peddle more lies...

[demsrule4life]

49. Mr B it is a real easy fucking test

Curve your finger like you are going to pull a trigger, have a stop watch, start bending your index finger like you are pulling a trigger 30 times, check the stop watch, how much money you want to bet you cant do it thirty times in two seconds?

[MrBenchley]

52. Dems, let's test for truth...

"The Bushmaster weapons system was based on the function and operating principles of the patented DIP aircrew survival weapon designed at the United States Air Force Armament Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base. Subsequent design changes integrated the battle proven characteristics of the U. S. military M16 and the unexcelled gas system of the Russian military AK-47; thus attaining the simplicity and functionability of the current Bushmaster production.
Cycle rate of fire (Automatic) 700 to 800 round. ·RPM. (approx.)"
That's 27 in two minutes...


The Colt AR15 has about the same rate of fire on automatic.


"At the request of the Attorney General, a Department of Justice (DOJ) sting operation was conducted at the Great Western Gun Show, April 30-May 2, 1999, to determine if illegal gun trafficking was occurring. Over the three-day event in the City of Pomona, DOJ agents from the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation purchased and obtained immediate possession of the following prohibited items: two illegal assault weapons; five illegal machine gun "conversion kits" and one illegal rocket launcher with projectile."

http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/1999/99-039.htm

[demsrule4life]

53. But we are not talking about full automatic weapons

we are talking about semi-automatic "assault" weapons. My test still stands. How much money?

[slackmaster]

57. Facts mean nothing to the gun-grabber crowd, dems

It's all about...

http://members.cox.slack/sounds/midi/feelings.mid

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

64. Who the hell are you trying to kid, dems?

Tell us about those auto conversion kits...

[demsrule4life]

68. And which ones would those be?

The AWB is about and has always been about the banning of semi-auto assault weapons. I'am still waiting about how much money you want to bid.

[MrBenchley]

69. The ones sold at gun shows, dems...

Of course if you want to pretend they're not, I'm not going to waste any more time with you....

[slackmaster]

70. MrBenchley is telling fairy tales again

No attempt to substantiate his claim.

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee slack....

Only a truly dishonest person would try to pretend that wasn't true....

"At the request of the Attorney General, a Department of Justice (DOJ) sting operation was conducted at the Great Western Gun Show, April 30-May 2, 1999, to determine if illegal gun trafficking was occurring. Over the three-day event in the City of Pomona, DOJ agents from the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation purchased and obtained immediate possession of the following prohibited items: two illegal assault weapons; five illegal machine gun "conversion kits" and one illegal rocket launcher with projectile."

http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/1999/99-039.htm

[slackmaster]

73. Only a truly dishonest person...

Would pretend, when he damn well knows better, that the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or the bills before Congress to potentially renew or strenghten it, have anything at all to do with machineguns or machinegun conversion kits.

[MrBenchley]

75. Gee, slack...

I'm not the one pretending that assault weapons can't be converted....but then I'm also not the one pretending he doesn't know who's pushing the bogus RKBA message here...nor am I the one cheerleading for the GOP's platform.

"slackmaster
47. Who is this "RKBA crowd" you keep referring to?
However I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20403&mesg_id=20484&page=

[slackmaster]

76. Straw Man

I'm not the one pretending that assault weapons can't be converted....

Neither am I, and I'd bet I know a shitload more about the subject than you do.


I wrote "However I will concede that now that I've read it I don't see anything at all wrong with the GOP's platform."

What do YOU see wrong with the GOP's platform regarding gun control?

Remember, the posting rules require you to attack the idea and not the person. Can you do that?

[demsrule4life]

77. I wouldn't know

unlike you I have never been to a gun show and observed all those Nazis, skinheads, people taking advantage of the gunshow loopholes and full auto conversion kits being sold by the dozens. And you really can do me a favor by not wasting time on me. :)

[Deaner1971]

51. No offense

No offense, Slack, but I have heard the same thing about the internet tax exemption. I question whether either one would (or should) ever be allowed to expire.

[slackmaster]

59. Why?

The purpose of the AWB was supposedly to increase public safety. In the absence of evidence that it has succeeded, what's the point in renewing it?

[Deaner1971]

63. What "absence"?

Slack,

Remember how we used to have mass shooting so much more often in the 80s? McDonalds in San Diego, Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, etc. Columbine was done with semi-automatics but, there were two assailants in that case.

Remember the shootout with the police in LA after that bankrobbery? Both suspects had automatics and body armour. No imagine that every robbery ends in a shootout like that because we make automatics readily available.

I just don't know why you need an automatic to hunt. Are the deer firing back? (And if so, don't worry. They are notoriously bad shots.)

[slackmaster]

72. You just blew my opinion of how well you understand the subject

Columbine was done with semi-automatics but, there were two assailants in that case.

None of the weapons used by the Columbine assailants was covered by the federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).

Remember the shootout with the police in LA after that bankrobbery? Both suspects had automatics and body armour. No imagine that every robbery ends in a shootout like that because we make automatics readily available.

The AWB has nothing whatsoever to do with automatic weapons.

I just don't know why you need an automatic to hunt.

Repeat: The AWB has nothing whatsoever to do with automatic weapons.

[Deaner1971]

78. Sorry

I acknowledge that fully automatic weapons are only governed under the 1934 law. My question is, if you aren't looking to be able to fire full auto, what is you need for a clip larger than 10 rounds (which is part of the AWB)? My assumption was that 10 shots was all that someone firing on semi-auto would need to hit their target.

[slackmaster]

80. With a large-capacity magazine you don't have to change mags as often

It's as simple as that.

My assumption was that 10 shots was all that someone firing on semi-auto would need to hit their target.

What's magic about the number 10 other than being the base of the numbering system used in most cultures?

A person should be able to hit a target with one shot, but shooting well always requires a lot of practice. Having a larger number of rounds available for firing without the distraction of reloading allows a shooter to stay focused on grip, sight picture, recoil handling, etc. Another factor that rarely gets mentioned is that it's just plain fun to shoot 20 or 30 rounds at an improvised gallery of found objects, e.g. beverage cans, pieces of fruit, appliances, car parts, etc. Or paper targets. When I go out shooting the #1 motivation is usually amusement, followed closely be stress relief.

Allow me also to note that the 10-round restriction in the AWB has had very little practical effect on what kinds of magazines are available. US government issue magazines for the M16 rifle, which work in civilian AR-15s, are still around $20 each because there is a huge surplus of them - Far more magazines in circulation than there are rifles that can use them. That is true for AK type rifles and many other common sport-utility firearms.

For some weapons like the Glock G17 pistol the pre-ban 17-round magazines cost about $100 due to scarcity, but everyone I know who owns a G17 already owns at least two of the larger magazines. I think I have five of them, all bought before the ban (because I knew the ban was coming, i.e. unintended consequences of the law).

[Deaner1971]

81. Agreed

I agree that 10 is arbitrary but, how much greater would the resistance to this bill have been if it had stipulated 5 round mags or single shot? I think 10 was an arbitrary number chosen because the public heard "10" and thought, "Yeah. That seems like enough rounds." It's all perception.

However, I don't see that having to reload your rifle after ten rounds versus twenty is seriously impacting anyone's quality of life or rights.

[slackmaster]

82. I agree with your analysis of where the 10 round limit came from

In fact the late Mr. William Ruger, co-founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co. (of the "Corrupt Gun Industry") testified before Congress that he thought 10 rounds was a reasonable limit for civilian use, and his company stopped selling larger magazines to other than law enforcement and government agencies BEFORE the ban took effect. A lot of gun owners disagreed with him; some even boycotted Ruger products.

It's also interesting to note that the Ruger Mini-14, a gas-operated semiauto rifle in caliber .223 (just like the AR-15) takes detachable magazines with aftermarket high-capacity ones widely available. The Mini-14 by all logic should be on the list of banned makes and models in the federal AWB, but it is specifically exempted (unless it's been modified to have enough Evil Features). It's widely believed that Mr. Ruger's kowtowing to gun-ban extremists got him that extra bit of slack in the law.

Setting the limit at 5 would have pissed off literally millions of people who own either a 1911 pistol (the traditional US military "45"), or an M1 Garand rifle. The standard magazine for the 1911 holds 7 rounds; the en bloc clip for the Garand holds 8.

However, I don't see that having to reload your rifle after ten rounds versus twenty is seriously impacting anyone's quality of life or rights.

A reasonable argument, OTOH would limiting the capacity to 10 as opposed to more really result in a significant increase in public safety? I do not believe hard data is available to support that.

[Deaner1971]

84. Good discussion

I doubt there is hard data for it but, it makes sense in my head, I guess. If some madman (or madwoman, don't want to go un-PC) has to reload twice as often it would seem to reduce the killing potential somewhat. It really seem slike it was a reaction to alot of the mass killings of the 80s where the public would see some guy with an uzi or "assault rifle" shooting and shooting and shooting and they blamed the capacity of the mags. Might be right or wrong but, in this case, I don't think erring on the side of caution is too great a threat.

Thanks for the even handed and polite discussion. Have a good holiday.

[Deaner1971]

29. Question

Isn't that ruling explicit to stating that owners on shotguns with barrles less than 18 inches cannot use the 2nd Amendment as a protection for owning such weapons without a specified permit?

The court seems to be saying that such weapons are not "military" in nature and therefore not explicitly protected by the 2nd. I don't see in the ruling an explicit endorsement fo military weapons having protection, just that this weapon cannot claim to have military usage.

I see your tact but, you are making an assumption about the underlying implict decision and not the explicit ruling.

Just my opinion.

[slackmaster]

31. US v. Miller established Constitutionality of the tax provisions of the NF

You seem to have a better grasp of the issue than most people do.

[Withergyld]

32. look at the basis of thier reasoning

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches
in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense."

If the weapon in question would have had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" or been "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." it WOULD have been protected.
Many of the arms prohibited by the AWB and the other proposed laws are banned because they are "military weapons."

[Deaner1971]

50. You can't look at "reasoning"

Wither,

I understand that you see "implict" endorsement and I won't argue that the language can be construed that way. However, it is interesting to note that the court stopped short of endorsing the idea that a fundamental right to own military weapons exists.

The reason for this could be not wanting to define what a military weapons is. They chose the pornography standard ("I can't define it but, I know it when I see it") and declared what was not a "military weapon" without stipulating what is. If they had decided to define what weapons were protected under the 2nd Amendment, they would have been writing law, not deciding its validity.

What is a military weapon? You say that an assault rifle (by this I am assuming a capacity of 20 or more rounds without reloading, a high velocity round, and semi-automatic/full automatic capacity) is a military weapon. However, when I served in one of those organizations listed as a "well orgainized militia" I worked on an 8 inch SP artillery howitzer. Would that qualify as a "military weapon"? The Army thinks so, and it certainly would "contribute to the common defense". It's a slippery slope and an extremely grey area.

[Withergyld]

54. they considered three factors in their decision

1)evidence tending to show that possession of a weapon has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
2) the weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment
3) that its use could contribute to the common defense

A self-propelled howitzer is not usually part of an infantry soldier's "combat load"

It seems reasonable that a weapon that meets these criteria IS protected.

[Deaner1971]

61. OK

But here's were you aren't matching terms. You say that their decision used "ordinary military equipment" not "infantry equipment" (which would include grenades and/or claymores) not "man portable" (which would Stinger missles). Thus, your interpretation of "cobat load" is not explict in the discussion. Also, an infantry soldier's "combat load" could also be an M60 or an M203. I don't think anyone thinks that the un-diagnosed nut down the road should have either of these.

Also, has the Supreme Court even defined the part of the 2nd Amendment that say "well regulated"? Regulated by whom? Wouldn't this be the National Guard and not a bunch of guys who decide to start the Elm Street militia? If you can self-regulate a militia, couldn't the KKK or the Aryans decide to be a militia and wouldn't they be entitled to all the military hardware that you speak of.

Don't get me wrong. I am looking forward to getting an AR-15 (miss shooting one since leaving the Army) but, as we all know, I just don't want THE OTHER GUY to have one :). Plus, I find this debate interesting so, I can't just agree with you. No fun.

[Withergyld]

74. A debate without name calling is refreshing!

In my first post to this thread I referenced Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code to remove the individual/collective rights issue from the debate.

With the definition of "militia" in Title 10 section 311 of the USC I don't think a ruling from the Supreme Court is necessary.

link to title 10 section 311: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=311+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

I may not be matching terms exactly but in US v Miller a large amount of the ruling is spent examining early militia clauses and the equipment required of militia members.
"That
every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months
thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket
or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box
therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to
the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a
proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and
Knapsack;..."
more
"Every officer and soldier shall appear at his
respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in
the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . .
every noncommissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket
carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the
barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a
cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty
cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen,"
edit: I hit reply too soon

The equipment listed is similar to what the common soldier of the day would have carried. From this I compared it to the equipment of the modern infantry soldier.

[Deaner1971]

79. I agree, good debate

Is your comparison to presnt weaponry accurate? With a repealed AWB, I could leagally purchase a 30 round magazine. That thirty round magazine could kill thirty people in approximately the same number of seconds. To kill that many with a musket, I think you might need to pack a lunch and glue your victims in place.

Also, the code does not stipulate that the unorganized militia is exempt from the UCMJ (the "organized" milita, the National Guard, certainly isn't). Doesn't that mean that any and all militia members are under military law?

Continuing that thought process, since the militia is made up of,

"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."

wouldn't everyone in this class be subject to military courts, rather than civilian ones?


Just a query...

<edited for misspelling>

[Withergyld]

83. Lets go through this point by point :)

"With a repealed AWB, I could leagally purchase a 30 round magazine."
Under the current law, sales to civilians of magazines with a capacity over 30 rounds manufactured after the ban is prohibited. Magazines manufactured before the ban are legal to sell to anyone.

"That thirty round magazine could kill thirty people in approximately the same number of seconds."
This claim is unrealistic. This would require killing 30 people in 30 seconds with one shot each and not missing. If you ever come to the Phoenix area, send me a PM and we will perform a test. I will provide the ammo, pay your range fee and provide the necessary saefty equipment. I don't have a 30 rnd mag, but I do have a 25 rnd mag for my Ruger 10-22. To make it easier we can place five silhouette targets at 50 yrds. The goal is to place five shots into the "kill zone" of each target in less then 50 seconds a different target must be shot each time a shot is fired. This would allow two seconds to aquire a target and fire a shot. I doubt most competition shooters could acomplish this task.

"To kill that many with a musket, I think you might need to pack a lunch and glue your victims in place."
This is true, but I'm not sure exactly where you are going with this. Clarify and I will address this.

"wouldn't everyone in this class be subject to military courts, rather than civilian ones?
I am not sure, but let me pose a question in return to clarify the issue. If a member of the National Guard commits a crime while not on active duty, are they charged in civilian court or military court? I would think the answer to this is most likely civilian court. I would think that a member of the "unorganized militia" would fall under civilan law unless they are participating in a "militia capacity" when the crime was committed similar to a National Guardsman.

[Deaner1971]

85. We are getting too organized in our discussions

1. Agreed. It does reduce but, not eliminate availablity.

2. In basic, we fired forty rounds at target out to 200m and needed a 36 out of forty to qualify as "Expert". I belive those numbers are accurate and I know the test was timed although I can't claim to know whether or not the time would meet the parameters of our discussion. It does seem possible, however. Of course, we both seem rational and I don't know if the mentality required for mass murder lends itself well to calm, accurate shooting (Charles Whitman being a possible exception). If I ever am in Phoenix, I'll take you up on it and pay my own way. I would welcome the chance to target shoot with someone else again.

3. It was a joke (especially the "glue" part) but, I was wondering if comparing a musket (accurate to 100 yards max. ) that required powder and flint to be used was a fair comparison to an M16 with rifled bullets and quick change magazines.

4. I seem to remember that we were subject to the code at all times (not just on duty) but, that may have been BS told to us to keep us out of trouble. I think the issue with an "unorganized" militia is the difficulty in determining when that individual is in which role.


Great discussion. Have a good holiday.

[Withergyld]

86. Organized is good

Sorry for missing the sarcasm of #3 it is hard to pick up on on the 'net. Some like to imply that the 2nd applies to only 1800's weapons.

#4 could be problematic. It may be similar to the problems of the definition of who is considered a combatant in the Geneva Convention. Look at the current debate as to the status of the prisoners at GITMO for an example of this.

[MrBenchley]

48. So we're still waiting to find out

how Senator Kerry was forced to do this...

Mind control? Bamboo splinters under the fingernails?

[funkyflathead]

56. Lobbying against him

It bet the CSGV would've endorsed Gephardt instead.

[MrBenchley]

67. And of course

you can back that up with some proof....