Weaponry; Discussion of Rights and Responsibilities

[cginok]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

Have no firearm. Have noto shot anything more than a Nintendo light gun. As far as laws go I say "It depends", I would outlaw handguns altogether in private hands. Long rifles I would permit for hunting and self defensive purposes. I would enact these laws knowing full well that it would not solve America's gun violence problem overnight and with the laws a underground market would spring up, but over time I believe that with the laws & mandatory registration program that will go a long way to curbing the gun violence issue.

I would suggest you watch a documentary entitled "Cartel Land." It's about a group of Mexican civilians that took up arms to defend themselves against drug cartels. They were armed with all kinds of "assault rifles" including full automatic AKs. The private ownership of firearms in Mexico is as regulated and restricted as it is anywhere on the planet...to the point that you can't even posses ammunition without a government permit. If they could find hundreds of "assault rifles" to equip themselves with, what makes you think your "laws & mandatory registration program" are going to work any better in the US? It definitely hasn't worked in Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel_Land

[gaeldom]

As a non US citizen, it's not my place to say what the people of the USA should and should not do, but I'm interested in the different views.
I see people saying that the Second Amendment gives them the right to bear arms. But this Amendment says: "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 way I read this, is that it does not give carte blanche for everyone to hold an arsenal of weapons, but they may be armed, if they are part of an organised militia.
Am I misinterpreting it, or not? Perhaps our American friends could explain it for me?
Cheers

[AmateurEmale]

@gaeldom: Thank you for civilly debating this issue.

I should tell you that when I began my political activism in the middle 1990s (1994-96) I had the good fortune to meet two militia commanders, an acquaintance of my extended family named Gary, and a black male named J.J. Johnson, who was himself married to Dr. Nancy Lord, 1992 V.P. candidate of the Libertarian Party. [!] They are not "gun nuts" as conventionally understood, merely guys who were freethinkers and concerned with the vanishing Bill of Rights protections in the U.S. Neither man struck me as crazy or violent, either. In fact, J.J. had a sense of humor about Ross Perot: "Thank God he didn't win!"

Now, in response to gaeldom's question, according to the Militia Act, every able-bodied American (not sure if it's just males anymore, if women can now be in combat) is technically a part of the militia, and in a national emergency the Militia(s) of the United States would be called out. I'm not entirely sure if the law specifies it has to be a public militia such as the State National Guards, or if reputable private militias such as the Ohio Military Reserve or Ohio Unorganized Militia would join in. Remember, as recently as Iraq in the early 2000s, the U.S. Government was sending "private military contractors" and "private security forces" overseas. Yet because my cousin's ex- was in the National Guard, his unit was eventually deployed to Afghanistan.

I personally would like to see private militias taking over most of the function of the National Guard and/or standing army, because the Founding Fathers thought standing armies suspect. And no, I don't think we'd see more crime and violence in a society where Americans could open-carry battle rifles or handguns. As Robert Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society."

[cginok]

Originally Posted by AmateurEmale

@gaeldom: Thank you for civilly debating this issue.

I should tell you that when I began my political activism in the middle 1990s (1994-96) I had the good fortune to meet two militia commanders, an acquaintance of my extended family named Gary, and a black male named J.J. Johnson, who was himself married to Dr. Nancy Lord, 1992 V.P. candidate of the Libertarian Party. [!] They are not "gun nuts" as conventionally understood, merely guys who were freethinkers and concerned with the vanishing Bill of Rights protections in the U.S. Neither man struck me as crazy or violent, either. In fact, J.J. had a sense of humor about Ross Perot: "Thank God he didn't win!"

Now, in response to gaeldom's question, according to the Militia Act, every able-bodied American (not sure if it's just males anymore, if women can now be in combat) is technically a part of the militia, and in a national emergency the Militia(s) of the United States would be called out. I'm not entirely sure if the law specifies it has to be a public militia such as the State National Guards, or if reputable private militias such as the Ohio Military Reserve or Ohio Unorganized Militia would join in. Remember, as recently as Iraq in the early 2000s, the U.S. Government was sending "private military contractors" and "private security forces" overseas. Yet because my cousin's ex- was in the National Guard, his unit was eventually deployed to Afghanistan.

I personally would like to see private militias taking over most of the function of the National Guard and/or standing army, because the Founding Fathers thought standing armies suspect. And no, I don't think we'd see more crime and violence in a society where Americans could open-carry battle rifles or handguns. As Robert Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society."

The National Guard and state militias are two separate entities. The NG did not exist until 1902, and most states, including the one I live in, still have a state militia in existence. In my state the law reads that the militia answers to the Governor and cannot be used outside of the geographic bounds of the state. Doesn't sound like the National Guard does it?

I should also add why the National Guard was created. Before the Civil War the US standing army was actually quite small...like 16,000. The accepted practice was that, in the time of war, the states would activate their militias, the Federal government would then nationalize them, and they would join up with the regular standing army and march off to fight. But, at the start of the Civil War, when Lincoln nationalized the states militias, several states refused to let the Federal government have them. It was mostly what are now midwestern states...Indiana, Illinois, Ohio. They were afraid that, if they let their militias march off to the east, and the Confederacy attacked them, they would be defenseless. That's why the National Guard was created.

[diamelsx]

Am I crazy for thinking that the gun lobby actually wants a Democrat in office? Now when I say "lobby" I mean strictly manufacturers and not owners. The reason I say that is every time a Democrat gets in office the word goes out about how the government is going to take our guns and the owners make a mad dash to stockpile all that they can. Am I Wrong? Cause if not and Hillary wins I am going stockpile gun stocks...

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

Have no firearm. Have noto shot anything more than a Nintendo light gun. As far as laws go I say "It depends", I would outlaw handguns altogether in private hands. Long rifles I would permit for hunting and self defensive purposes. I would enact these laws knowing full well that it would not solve America's gun violence problem overnight and with the laws a underground market would spring up, but over time I believe that with the laws & mandatory registration program that will go a long way to curbing the gun violence issue.

As you were changing this font I finished reading the second page and went back to respond to this post. I was looking for that heavy green font and thought I was going crazy when I couldn't find it

Diamelsx:

We already have mandatory registration. You can not legally purchase a gun without it being reported to the Federal government. Whether they could manage that data better is a matter perspective based opinion.

As for the idea of banning handguns as a previous post points out Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws anywhere and it did nothing to stop citizens from arming themselves against the cartels. I would have pointed out that they also have some of the most heavily armed criminals. The cartels operate small well armed armies which are armed with weapons that have been outlawed in the US since the mid 30s.

Any law you pass to ban handguns will only serve to take hand guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. You seem to think that long guns are a viable for self defense. While I would rather have a rifle than be unarmed a handgun is by far, far a better choice for self defense. You have acknowledge that your proposed laws would not work overnight. How many lives are you willing to sacrifice until your proposed law takes affect? Are you aware that, per the USDOJ, in the US 450000 to 500000 times a year privately owned firearms are used for self-defense? So again I ask how many people are you willing to sacrifice? 1000, 5000, 10000, 25000 or more? How many?

I will take you at your word that you only want to ban hand guns but do you really believe groups like Handgun Control inc would stop at handguns. Make no mistake their goal is to outlaw private ownership of guns, to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Instead passing laws to harshen criminal penalties the left wants to lighten criminal penalties and criminalize legal constitutionally protected behavior (owning a gun). How about instead of use a gun go to jail how about use a gun go to jail for a very very long time? How about 10 years for the use of a gun while committing a crime, 15 years if that gun is fired, 25 years if someone is shot and life with no parole for killing someone with a gun.

[vannax]

Originally Posted by gaeldom

As a non US citizen, it's not my place to say what the people of the USA should and should not do, but I'm interested in the different views.
I see people saying that the Second Amendment gives them the right to bear arms. But this Amendment says: "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 way I read this, is that it does not give carte blanche for everyone to hold an arsenal of weapons, but they may be armed, if they are part of an organised militia.
Am I misinterpreting it, or not? Perhaps our American friends could explain it for me?
Cheers

"A good breakfast being essential to a healthy diet, the right of the people to keep food shall not be infringed"

Do you read that to mean that people may only keep food if they eat a good breakfast?

[bowlinggreen]

To respond to the OP, I doubt it is the government "rationing" ammo, but the companies. The reason being they don't want "ammo scalpers" buying it all up and then selling it elsewhere at higher prices.

I have to say, taking a look around, I am shocked at what 22 ammo costs these days. $5.00 a box? Christ. I haven't shot a gun for many years, but I remember back in the late 80s you could buy a whole BRICK of 500 for $9.99 - and that was the usual price, not the sale price.

I see there is some kind of 17 caliber "super magnum rimfire" for sale these days too - at $17.99 per box of 50. Who the hell pays that kind of money for a small game gun? If you were reloading, you could probably reload some of the centerfire 22s over and over for a fair bit less than what you pay for a dinky throw-away caliber like that.

I also don't see why anyone would hoard 22 ammo. That stuff is not tightly sealed like centerfire ammo. Unless you store it just right it will go sour over time.

[vannax]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

To respond to the OP, I doubt it is the government "rationing" ammo, but the companies. The reason being they don't want "ammo scalpers" buying it all up and then selling it elsewhere at higher prices.

I have to say, taking a look around, I am shocked at what 22 ammo costs these days. $5.00 a box? Christ. I haven't shot a gun for many years, but I remember back in the late 80s you could buy a whole BRICK of 500 for $9.99 - and that was the usual price, not the sale price.

I see there is some kind of 17 caliber "super magnum rimfire" for sale these days too - at $17.99 per box of 50. Who the hell pays that kind of money for a small game gun? If you were reloading, you could probably reload some of the centerfire 22s over and over for a fair bit less than what you pay for a dinky throw-away caliber like that.

I also don't see why anyone would hoard 22 ammo. That stuff is not tightly sealed like centerfire ammo. Unless you store it just right it will go sour over time.

I think much blame can be laid at the feet of the governments. The gun and ammo retail industry is over-regulated.

[cginok]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

To respond to the OP, I doubt it is the government "rationing" ammo, but the companies. The reason being they don't want "ammo scalpers" buying it all up and then selling it elsewhere at higher prices.

I have to say, taking a look around, I am shocked at what 22 ammo costs these days. $5.00 a box? Christ. I haven't shot a gun for many years, but I remember back in the late 80s you could buy a whole BRICK of 500 for $9.99 - and that was the usual price, not the sale price.

I see there is some kind of 17 caliber "super magnum rimfire" for sale these days too - at $17.99 per box of 50. Who the hell pays that kind of money for a small game gun? If you were reloading, you could probably reload some of the centerfire 22s over and over for a fair bit less than what you pay for a dinky throw-away caliber like that.

I also don't see why anyone would hoard 22 ammo. That stuff is not tightly sealed like centerfire ammo. Unless you store it just right it will go sour over time.

Around here people will buy a brick of 22 ammo for like $20. They get them either online or out of state. Then try and sell it on Facebook groups for $10 a box. There being 10 boxes in each brick, that's $100 for the brick. They're making $80 dollars profit per brick.