Short and to the point: Obama the Liar

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

A citizen should be able to own the sort of weapons that would allow him or her to be an effective militia-member.

That's a very simple standard.

I agree but what makes him effective changes as the nature of war changes. We don't need to confine us to muzzle loaders in an era of high tech warfare.

And biological or nuclear warfare is unnecessary for effective militia preparedness. A bazooka might be.

Currently the registration process and taxes are so high for "assault weapons" that most citizens cannot afford to own them lawfully.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I haven't clearly thought about the line because it's already drawn further away than makes sense to me. I don't believe suitcase nuclear bombs are a reality, so we might as we discuss photon disrupter arrays while you're at it. Under international law some of those weapons are illegal for any nation to possess, so perhaps as long as international law does not go haywire, a limitation on the person would be anything that a nation state has agreed not to possess within its own arsenal.

I'm not sure I follow you. We aren't discussing what other nations should do with their "right to bear arms" provisions. We are discussing what the US should do. The US is permitted to hold nuclear weapons. It is also permitted to hold chemical and biological weapons (and does- lots of them). I am also very surprised to hear you suggest that US constitutional norms ought to be dictated by provisions of international law (i.e., to the extent international law changes and says the US can't have nuclear weapons, constitutional law should change accordingly to say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual's right to those weapons).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree but what makes him effective changes as the nature of war changes. We don't need to confine us to muzzle loaders in an era of high tech warfare.

And biological or nuclear warfare is unnecessary for effective militia preparedness. A bazooka might be.

Currently the registration process and taxes are so high for "assault weapons" that most citizens cannot afford to own them lawfully.

You and Waters appear to be coming to the conclusion that the standard ought now to be whatever is necessary for "effective militia preparedness" must be permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

If so, you seem to be coming around to more of a collectivist notion of the 2nd Amendment. If all of your neighbors have AK-47s, is your ownership of an AK-47 no longer "necessary" for "effective militia preparedness?" Plenty of people around you have that weapon already. Maybe what they really need now to be effective is a sniper rifle, but they only really need 1 to be effective. Does one person per community hold the right to own a sniper rifle? I don't imagine this is what you mean, but then you get caught up in the individual issue of whether or not a person's ownership of a gun advances your stated purpose ("effective militia preparedness").

If the 2nd Amendment exists to ensure we have an effective militia (which, once again, is a collectivist notion and not an individual rights notion, but so be it), then shouldn't some sort of training be required in order to purchase an AK-47 or similar weapon? Mere ownership of an AK-47 does nothing for effective militia preparedness, absent an understanding on how to use the AK-47. Are Apache/Blackhawk helicopters necessary for effective militia preparedness? If you don't have access to an Apache/Blackhawk, do the weapons you require to be effective change? Surely you need some weapons to counter air strikes, right? SAMs, for example? Radar jamming capabilities? Anti-tank missiles?

This issue is far more complicated than either of you want to pretend. You both want it to be cut and dry that all assault weapons are permitted as a matter of fact by the 2nd Amendment (despite the legal reality to the contrary). You would both admit in a different context that there must be a line drawn, but neither of you want to attempt to draw that line now, for fear that it will undermine your argument.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You and Waters appear to be coming to the conclusion that the standard ought now to be whatever is necessary for "effective militia preparedness" must be permitted under the 2nd Amendment.

If so, you seem to be coming around to more of a collectivist notion of the 2nd Amendment. If all of your neighbors have AK-47s, is your ownership of an AK-47 no longer "necessary" for "effective militia preparedness?" Plenty of people around you have that weapon already. Maybe what they really need now to be effective is a sniper rifle, but they only really need 1 to be effective. Does one person per community hold the right to own a sniper rifle? I don't imagine this is what you mean, but then you get caught up in the individual issue of whether or not a person's ownership of a gun advances your stated purpose ("effective militia preparedness").

If the 2nd Amendment exists to ensure we have an effective militia (which, once again, is a collectivist notion and not an individual rights notion, but so be it), then shouldn't some sort of training be required in order to purchase an AK-47 or similar weapon? Mere ownership of an AK-47 does nothing for effective militia preparedness, absent an understanding on how to use the AK-47. Are Apache/Blackhawk helicopters necessary for effective militia preparedness? If you don't have access to an Apache/Blackhawk, do the weapons you require to be effective change? Surely you need some weapons to counter air strikes, right? SAMs, for example? Radar jamming capabilities? Anti-tank missiles?

This issue is far more complicated than either of you want to pretend. You both want it to be cut and dry that all assault weapons are permitted as a matter of fact by the 2nd Amendment (despite the legal reality to the contrary). You would both admit in a different context that there must be a line drawn, but neither of you want to attempt to draw that line now, for fear that it will undermine your argument.

You're arguing to argue not to understand relatively clear distinctions. You're not military, and you don't understand the theories of armed insurgency, the reason it keeps the governing pure and scared.

A militia is not a standing army and does not have the same needs. Stick with the program. If you distinguish between the two and the inherent right of self protection, it's not so tough and we don't need legal reasoning to understand it. We understand you come down on the side of extreme regulation and limitation. That is the persona you've chosen to adopt here. For me the regulation outside of felons is already too much. I don't like invasion of privacy in terms of registering large amounts of information regarding anything.

[MikeWaters]

You want to learn how to use an AK-47? Buy one. Read about it. Talk to your friends. Get on the internet. Go to the range. Shoot it. Report back.

This is what thousands of Americans are doing right now this week, I assure you. There are hundreds if not thousands of gun message boards. People are getting trained, both formally, and informally. You want formal training with an AK-47? Go to Gabe Suarez's site, and sign up for one of his sessions.

LOL, Cali on sniper rifles. To outlaw sniper rifles, you would basically have to outlaw hunting rifles, since that is what an effective hunting rig is--the capability of very accurately hitting a large animal from distance and taking it down.

[MikeWaters]

To address the questions I asked Cali, that he did not know the answer to:

1) Yes, it is legal for a lawful person to own an automatic weapon. There are regulatory hurdles. But the primary hurdle is that the govt. has not allowed any new weapons into the legal supply for many, many years now, so this has made these weapons prohibitively expensive. So if you have 20k or so, and want to go through the regulatory procedures and taxes, you could have a fully-auto (now vintage) Colt M16. If the supply were not restricted, the cost would be closer to 1k. Most people can't/aren't willing to pay a 19k tax to own a firearm.

2) Yes, it is legal to own a silencer/suppressor. You have to pay for a tax stamp and go through a regulatory process. Go onto youtube, and it will be apparent that many people own them. People like to shoot with reduced noise. The silencers, however, are not cheap. Combine that with the regulatory hassle and the tax stamp, and most people don't bother.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To address the questions I asked Cali, that he did not know the answer to:

1) Yes, it is legal for a lawful person to own an automatic weapon. There are regulatory hurdles. But the primary hurdle is that the govt. has not allowed any new weapons into the legal supply for many, many years now, so this has made these weapons prohibitively expensive. So if you have 20k or so, and want to go through the regulatory procedures and taxes, you could have a fully-auto (now vintage) Colt M16. If the supply were not restricted, the cost would be closer to 1k. Most people can't/aren't willing to pay a 19k tax to own a firearm.

2) Yes, it is legal to own a silencer/suppressor. You have to pay for a tax stamp and go through a regulatory process. Go onto youtube, and it will be apparent that many people own them. People like to shoot with reduced noise. The silencers, however, are not cheap. Combine that with the regulatory hassle and the tax stamp, and most people don't bother.

As for fully autos, I don't think I would wish to own one because of the high taxes, but the suppressors are highly taxed but not as highly taxed in the sense that more people choose to afford them. They reduce muzzle velocity but make shooting the weapon not as big a pain. I don't need any more help losing hearing, even with headsets. Shoot a 22 with a suppressor and you'll can't hear more than the clicking of the trigger.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As for fully autos, I don't think I would wish to own one because of the high taxes, but the suppressors are highly taxed but not as highly taxed in the sense that more people choose to afford them. They reduce muzzle velocity but make shooting the weapon not as big a pain. I don't need any more help losing hearing, even with headsets. Shoot a 22 with a suppressor and you'll can't hear more than the clicking of the trigger.

My understanding is that most if not all suppressors (external) do not reduce muzzle velocity. Integral suppressors (i.e. a weapon built to be quiet) have reduced muzzle velocity as a result.

The tax on a suppressor is a one-time tax stamp of $200.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're arguing to argue not to understand relatively clear distinctions. You're not military, and you don't understand the theories of armed insurgency, the reason it keeps the governing pure and scared.

A militia is not a standing army and does not have the same needs. Stick with the program. If you distinguish between the two and the inherent right of self protection, it's not so tough and we don't need legal reasoning to understand it. We understand you come down on the side of extreme regulation and limitation. That is the persona you've chosen to adopt here. For me the regulation outside of felons is already too much. I don't like invasion of privacy in terms of registering large amounts of information regarding anything.

You are making my very point, Arch, without even realizing it. A militia is NOT a standing army and does NOT have the same needs. How do we determine what the "needs" are for an "effective military unit" and why would we then apply those to the citizenry if we are beginning with the assumption that we must distinguish between the two and that the needs of the two groups vastly differ?

I am not advocating the "extreme side of regulation and limitation." Actually, I am arguing something much closer to the status quo- the government may regulate, or even ban, automatic weapons if it wants to. Your views on this topic are more appropriately characterized as extreme (in that they differ significantly from normally accepted beliefs and legal principles on this topic).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You want to learn how to use an AK-47? Buy one. Read about it. Talk to your friends. Get on the internet. Go to the range. Shoot it. Report back.

This is what thousands of Americans are doing right now this week, I assure you. There are hundreds if not thousands of gun message boards. People are getting trained, both formally, and informally. You want formal training with an AK-47? Go to Gabe Suarez's site, and sign up for one of his sessions.

LOL, Cali on sniper rifles. To outlaw sniper rifles, you would basically have to outlaw hunting rifles, since that is what an effective hunting rig is--the capability of very accurately hitting a large animal from distance and taking it down.

So you are accepting that training is necessary for ownership of an AK-47? That is a pretty odd admission if you are going to advocate for unfettered rights to own a gun.

Who said sniper rifles should or could be outlawed? Stop reading what you want to read and pay attention.